The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC whether a whistleblower must prove that an employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Court’s decision will settle a split between the circuit courts, which will impact how employers defend against Sarbanes-Oxley Act retaliation claims.
Tag: US Supreme Court
Life After Students for Fair Admissions: Dissecting Challenges to Employers’ Diversity Programs
The American First Legal Foundation and other organizations like it, have taken the position that all diversity, equity and inclusion programs are illegal since the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The groups have already filed actions against several companies for polices that include goals for the placement of people of color and women in leadership and leadership pipeline positions to match community demographics by a certain year; employee training and apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented groups; and quantitative representation metrics for leadership incorporated into annual incentive compensation awards for senior leadership.
Next Stage Considerations About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision: How to Put the Warning Letter from the State Attorneys General in Context
As higher education institutions, state and local governments, private employers and federal contractors grapple with understanding the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (U.S. June 29, 2023), it is not surprising that elected officials — including 13 state attorneys general — have markedly different views about the philosophy and effects of affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. So, what should potentially affected organizations do in response to this legal uncertainty? We suggest taking a breath and bringing method to the madness.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates Race-Conscious Admissions: Key Considerations for Postsecondary Institutions, Employers and Others
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., holding that race-conscious admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina are constitutionally impermissible. Both public colleges and universities, and private institutions receiving federal funds, are prohibited from considering race in admissions decisions. As a result of the decision, institutions may also need to evaluate other areas in which educational services or benefits potentially take race into account, including but not limited to the provision of scholarships or grants. There may also be significant implications for employers’ voluntary affirmative action and DEI programs, as well as potential implications for mandatory affirmative action for government contractors, as a result of the decision.
Supreme Court Decides Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., No. 21-707, holding that the admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Top 10 Non-Compete Law Developments of 2021
The top 10 non-compete law developments in 2021 demonstrated a continued hostility by lawmakers and courts toward noncompetition and no-hire agreements, as well as the need for employers to stay current on the diverse state-specific limitations governing restrictive covenants, new federal activity in the area and ongoing case law developments. In light of these trends, national employers would do well to (1) be selective in identifying those categories of employees required to sign such agreements, (2) rely on allowable choice-of-law and venue provisions to maximize the chances of enforceability, (3) keep a keen eye on likely federal developments in the year ahead and (4) avoid no-poach agreements with employers as a poor substitute for narrowly tailored employee non-compete agreements.
Continue reading “Top 10 Non-Compete Law Developments of 2021”