Top Stories

labor court

Silas Avatar
Silas

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox cannot return to work while she challenges her termination by President Donald Trump[1]. This ruling leaves the NLRB without a quorum to hear cases and signals the Court may reconsider the longstanding Humphrey’s Executor precedent that limits the President’s power to remove independent agency officials. The case remains unresolved on the merits and will return to the Supreme Court after full briefing and argument[1].

Across the country, significant state-level developments are shaping labor law. The Michigan Supreme Court now requires stricter judicial review for employment contracts that shorten the limitation period for civil rights claims[3]. In California, SB 648 has empowered the state labor commissioner to directly enforce laws against tip theft, giving workers an alternative to lengthy civil litigation[3]. Meanwhile, Florida’s new CHOICE Act allows employers to enforce noncompete agreements lasting up to four years and mandates preliminary injunctions in their favor without proof of business interest or harm, fundamentally changing employee mobility rights in the state[3].

At the federal level, the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for major labor and employment cases in its 2024-2025 term, with key questions such as the employer’s burden of proof under the Fair Labor Standards Act receiving special attention[2].

Recent federal appellate decisions also continue to define and clarify employer obligations. The Eleventh Circuit recently sided with a pension fund regarding the statutory order for applying credits to employer withdrawal liability calculations, aligning with existing case law in other circuits despite a dissenting opinion on the fund’s accounting practices[4].

The U.S. Department of Labor has revived its Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program as of July 24, 2025. The program now facilitates voluntary settlements of potential Fair Labor Standards Act and Family and Medical Leave Act violations, reflecting the Department’s evolving approach to compliance and dispute resolution[7].

Finally, a proposed OSHA rule that would restrict the agency’s enforcement authority under the general duty clause has drawn concern from commentators and former officials, who argue it may roll back critical worker protections. Legal experts warn this rule is vulnerable to challenge and may have far-reaching implications for federal workplace safety regulation[6].

References

Other Posts