Insights

Washington, D.C. – January 13, 2015: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce the publication of its third annual "Litigation Forecast: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know in the Coming Year," and the introduction of its first-ever "Regulatory Forecast 2015: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know in the Coming Year."

Washington, D.C. – January 17, 2013: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce it has elected seven attorneys to the firm's partnership effective January 1, 2013. The firm has also promoted three attorneys to the position of senior counsel, and nine associates to the position of counsel. The new partners, senior counsel, and counsel have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm's Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Brussels, and London offices.

In Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, Nos. 22-3101/3102, a split three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that notice to potential plaintiffs should only be issued if lead plaintiffs show a “strong likelihood” that such absent employees are “‘similarly situated’ to the plaintiffs themselves.” In so holding, the Sixth Circuit joined the Fifth Circuit in rejecting the long-standing “lenient” two-step collective action certification process.  The Sixth Circuit declined, however, to apply the Fifth Circuit’s approach and adopted a “strong likelihood” standard.  The Clark decision, issued on May 19, 2023, will significantly impact FLSA collective action litigation in favor of employers in federal district courts in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  The widening Circuit split ripens this issue for review by the Supreme Court of the United States.

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit held that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and consequently California employers are free to require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. See Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Bonta, No. 20-15291, 2023 WL 2013326 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2023). AB 51 made it a criminal offense for an employer to do so, whether for applicants or existing employees.

The Supreme Court gave employers some good news this week in deciding that time spent by workers going through a theft-prevention security screening at the end of their shifts need not be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court sided with the employer, determining that post-shift security screening procedures were not "integral and indispensable" to the workers' principal duties. The Court also clarified the standard to determine whether pre- and post-shift activities must be compensated under the FLSA.

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.