Whether the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Thole vs. U.S. Bank on June 1 is “good news” for employers and will limit lawsuits by defined benefit participants, as some commentators
Continue Reading Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Jeffrey Mamorsky and Jonathan Sulds’ Pen ERISA Column in Pensions and Investments

What do a gay child-welfare advocate from Georgia, a transgender funeral home employee from Michigan, and a gay skydiving instructor from New York have in common? According to the Supreme
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules Title VII protects LGBT+ Employees from Workplace Discrimination: Practical Implications for Employers

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. and unanimously reversed the California Court of Appeal. The Court held an employee does not lose standing to pursue claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., even when that employee settles his individual Labor Code claims asserted in that same action.

In Reins, the plaintiff claimed his employer had misclassified him as an exempt employee. He alleged the usual panoply of Labor Code claims (failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties) and sought civil penalties under the PAGA. The plaintiff later settled all of his individual claims, but not the PAGA claims.
Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs: No Injury, No Problem, Says Unanimous California Supreme Court

As noted in our 2019 legislative update, New Jersey and New York have joined a growing number of states in prohibiting employers from asking job applicants about their salary
Continue Reading New York, New Jersey Employers Now Prohibited From Inquiring About Salary History

In its recent decision in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided that two investment
Continue Reading First Circuit Concludes That Two Private Equity Funds Were Not Liable for Pension Fund Withdrawal Liability of Portfolio Company