Explore

Supreme Court Declines Review of NLRB's Adjudicative Precedent Interpretation

Supreme Court Declines Review of NLRB's Adjudicative Precedent Interpretation

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a petition in the case of Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. NLRB. The employer, Rieth-Riley Construction Co., had argued that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reinterpret one of its own long-standing precedents without independently analyzing the precedent's original meaning. The case centered on the NLRB's 1958 decision in Retail Associates, which governs withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining units. Rieth-Riley contended that the NLRB effectively rewrote this rule by interpreting 'the agreed-upon date' for bargaining to begin as 'any agreed-upon date,' thereby allowing a union to withdraw even when no specific bargaining date had been set. The employer argued that this interpretation nullified part of the original rule and contradicted the text of the Board's own precedent, and that the Sixth Circuit wrongly deferred to the agency's reading.

Nurse Challenges NLRB Decision Blocking Union Decertification Vote at Spectrum Health Systems

Nurse Challenges NLRB Decision Blocking Union Decertification Vote at Spectrum Health Systems

Julie Reno, a nurse at Spectrum Health Systems, has filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn a Regional Director's decision that indefinitely blocked a vote to remove the AFSCME Union. Reno, represented by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, initially filed a petition in May for a secret-ballot vote on decertifying AFSCME Local 93. The vote has been delayed for six months, with union lawyers and Regional Board officials providing various reasons. Initially, a 'contract bar' was cited, but this was challenged as no agreement with definite start and end dates was produced. Subsequently, the Region blocked the election based on two alleged unfair labor practice charges filed by AFSCME against Spectrum Health eight months prior. Reno's filing argues that the NLRB's 'blocking charge' policy conflicts with Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, which mandates an election when a question of representation exists, and that the ...

A history of MLB labor part one: “Offered an apple, could have had an orchard”

A history of MLB labor part one: “Offered an apple, could have had an orchard”

Teamsters Local 665 Files Federal Complaints Against Rodney Strong Vineyards Alleging Union Intimidation

Teamsters Local 665 Files Federal Complaints Against Rodney Strong Vineyards Alleging Union Intimidation

Teamsters Local 665, a union attempting to organize production workers at Rodney Strong Vineyards in Healdsburg, has filed two separate complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in September. The union alleges that the winery has engaged in intimidation tactics to discourage workers from signing union cards, including sowing fears of disciplinary action or dismissal. Max Bell Alper, executive director at North Bay Jobs with Justice, stated that union organizers claim the vineyard's hired consultant verbally discouraged workers and spread misinformation about federal immigration enforcement agents being nearby. Rodney Strong Vineyards, through spokesperson Christopher O’Gorman, has denied these accusations, calling them 'categorically false' and affirming the company's intent to comply with all applicable laws protecting employees' rights. The winery maintains that any unionization effort should proceed through a federally supervised secret-ballot election, rather than a card check process.

NetChoice to Petition Supreme Court Over Georgia Social Media Age Verification Law

NetChoice to Petition Supreme Court Over Georgia Social Media Age Verification Law

NetChoice, a tech industry group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to block Georgia's Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act (SB 351). This law mandates age verification for social media users, prohibits minors under 16 from creating accounts without parental consent, and restricts advertising to users under 16 based on personal information other than age and location. NetChoice argues that these provisions violate the First Amendment. A U.S. District Court Judge, Amy Totenberg, initially sided with NetChoice and blocked the law's enforcement. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, sending the case back for further proceedings. The appellate judges indicated that NetChoice had not definitively proven the law would always violate the First Amendment, suggesting an application-by-application analysis might be necessary, especially for platforms hosting content like pornography, which is protected for adults but not minors. NetChoice contends that such an approach is ove...

Foley Lardner LLP Attorneys Co-Author Comprehensive Guide on AI and Technology in the Workplace

Foley Lardner LLP Attorneys Co-Author Comprehensive Guide on AI and Technology in the Workplace

Foley Lardner LLP Attorneys Co-Author Comprehensive Guide on AI and Technology in the Workplace

Supreme Court sounds ready to further limit prisoner lawsuits

Supreme Court sounds ready to further limit prisoner lawsuits

The Supreme Court could further curtail the already limited ability to seek damages from a federal employee for violating someone's rights.

Supreme Court Declines to Update Insanity Defense Model, Retaining 183-Year-Old Legal Theory

Supreme Court Declines to Update Insanity Defense Model, Retaining 183-Year-Old Legal Theory

The Supreme Court, in the 2020 case *Kahler v. Kansas*, declined an opportunity to update the legal model of the mind used in insanity defenses, effectively upholding an 183-year-old theory. The Court ruled 6-3 that due process does not require states to excuse a defendant who could not distinguish right from wrong. This decision means that states like Kansas can limit mental illness as a defense only if it negates intent, rather than considering a broader inability to appreciate wrongfulness. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, found the historical record on insanity defenses too mixed to mandate a change. This adherence to the M’Naghten rules, established in 1843, maintains a simplified view of the human mind in legal contexts, often clashing with modern psychiatric understanding. The issue gained renewed attention with the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, where a jury deadlocked on whether a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis could be held criminally responsible under existing leg...

'Horrific decision': These Texans bashed the Supreme Court's Big Bend ruling

'Horrific decision': These Texans bashed the Supreme Court's Big Bend ruling

Big Bend area residents and advocates argue the Big Bend region doesn’t see enough migrants to merit a border wall and that building one will destroy what makes the area a national treasure.

EFF and ACLU File Amicus Brief Urging Warrant Requirement for ALPR Searches in Sixth Circuit

EFF and ACLU File Amicus Brief Urging Warrant Requirement for ALPR Searches in Sixth Circuit

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of *United States v. Sturdivant*. The brief argues that law enforcement's use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data to track individuals constitutes a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant. The case involves police in Cleveland, Ohio, who used ALPR databases (Flock and ELSAG) to track a suspect's vehicle near robbery sites without a warrant, leading to an arrest. The district court previously ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate number because it is publicly observable. However, the EFF and ACLU contend that ALPR systems create a 'virtual time machine' of past movements, far exceeding casual public observation and amounting to indiscriminate mass surveillance. They cite a recent federal district court ruling that recognized ALPRs as a form of mass surveillance...

Jackson Lewis Seeks Labor Of Counsel Attorney for Phoenix Office to Handle NLRB Cases

Jackson Lewis Seeks Labor Of Counsel Attorney for Phoenix Office to Handle NLRB Cases

Jackson Lewis Seeks Labor Of Counsel Attorney for Phoenix Office to Handle NLRB Cases

Illinois Law Clarifies Employee Cannabis Use and Workplace Privacy Rights

Illinois Law Clarifies Employee Cannabis Use and Workplace Privacy Rights

Illinois law provides specific guidelines regarding employee cannabis use and workplace privacy. Under the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, employees are protected for legal activities conducted during their free time, including the legal use of cannabis outside of work hours. This means employees are not obligated to inform their employers about off-duty cannabis use. However, employers in Illinois retain the right to maintain a drug-free workplace. This allows them to discipline or terminate employees for using or possessing cannabis during work hours or on company property, provided these rules are enforced consistently and without discrimination. Employers can also implement reasonable drug-free workplace policies, which may include mandatory drug testing. A positive cannabis test alone does not automatically lead to termination; employment decisions must be based on actual impairment or failure to perform job duties due to cannabis use at work. For medical cannabis users, the situation is more c...