Posts tagged Supreme Court

    Union Fights to Revive $3.5M Pension Win Against Jones Lang LaSalle

    October 21, 2025 // In a Friday petition for rehearing, the pipe fitters and plumbers’ union — alongside several benefit funds and trustees — urged the Third Circuit to reconsider or rehear the case en banc, arguing that the panel’s split September ruling misinterpreted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and ignored key principles set forth by the Supreme Court. At the Heart of the Battle: What Counts as “Hours Paid”? The dispute stems from a 2020 ERISA lawsuit accusing Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc. (JLL) of failing to properly account for overtime pay when calculating pension contributions. The Delaware district court initially sided with the union in 2024, awarding $3.5 million in unpaid contributions, audit costs, liquidated damages, and interest.

    Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers

    October 21, 2025 // The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”

    US Supreme Court won’t review rule allowing H-1B holders’ spouses to work

    October 15, 2025 // The justices denied a petition, opens new tab by Save Jobs USA, which represents American tech workers who it says were displaced by foreign labor, to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that said the Department of Homeland Security had the power to adopt the rule in 2015. Following its usual practice, the court did not explain its decision.

    Shasta County Board of Supervisors to Appeal Ruling in Free Speech Case Against California Public Employment Relations Board

    October 15, 2025 // The lawsuit, filed on March 17 by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and a county employee, challenges California statutes that prevent public employers from informing employees about their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership. Two specific statutes within the California Government Code restrict the board’s ability to communicate freely about union membership options and infringe on employees’ constitutional right to receive truthful information. These statutes can best be characterized as California’s Gag Rule statutes because they force public employers into silence regarding a matter of public concern.

    California Dramatically Expands State Labor Board’s Powers to Cover Employees Under NLRB’s Exclusive Jurisdiction, Following New York’s Lead

    October 13, 2025 // California’s legislation comes on the heels of and follows the same logic behind New York’s recently enacted “NLRB Trigger Bill” that similarly empowers the Empire State’s PERB to step into the shoes of the Board, which we covered here. The NLRB has lacked a quorum for months and as a result remains unable to process appeals from decisions by Board administrative law judges or regional directors in unfair labor practice or representation cases. However, AB 288 will likely face similar legal challenges to New York’s “NLRB Trigger Bill,” which the Board has sued over, as we covered here. Specifically, AB 288 may be preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”), which covers most private-sector employees, under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

    Testimony: Rachel Greszler: Labor Law Reform Part 1: Diagnosing the Issues, Exploring Current Proposals

    October 10, 2025 // SummaryToday’s challenges—from the rise of artificial intelligence to the expansion of independent work and the growing demand for flexibility, autonomy, and new skills—necessitate modernized labor laws that are pro-worker and pro-employer, regardless of the type of workplace. Heavy-handed government interventions and attempts to bring back the 1950s’ ways of work are not the answers. American labor laws should preserve the freedom, dignity, and opportunity that make American work exceptional.

    agency shop Alexander T. MacDonald arbitration panel Artificial Intelligence Association Health Plans Act automation autonomy BLS California Chattanooga collective bargaining agreement condition of employment Congress contract ratification DEI disabled discriminate DOL economic conditions Employee Rights Act entrepreneurship F. Vincent Vernuccio Fairness and Transparency Office Faster Labor Contracts Act federal labor law Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service flexibility forced arbitration freedom of association freedom of speech gig workers health and safety Heritage Foundation independent contracting Independent Retirement Fairness Act injury rates Janus v. AFSCME joint-employer standard Labor Law Reform NLRA older opt-out overweight paid family leave personal information political activities politicization pregnant presidential administrations private businesses pro-employer pro-worker productivity Public Sector Workers quotas Raise Act regulation remote work Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act right-to-work SALT Act Save Local Business Act secret ballot elections self-employment Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee Senate Hearing Strikes Supreme Court Tennessee testimony U.S. citizens UAW unelected bureaucrats union dues union extortion union shop union violence union wage premium Unionization Unlocking Benefits for Independent Workers Act Volkswagen Wage and Hour Division Warehouse Worker Protection Act warehouses Worker Enfranchisement Act workplace benefits

    Commentary: When fighting Trump, take union claims with a grain of salt

    October 7, 2025 // Government unions faced another momentous reform seven years ago when the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME. The court held that public sector workers have a First Amendment right to completely withdraw from union membership and dues. In essence, the court created a nationwide right-to-work law for all public sector workers, including teachers, police officers, firefighters, and all other federal, state, and local government workers. No longer would they have to join or pay a union to keep their job. Government unions hated this ruling, of course. In a desperate attempt to sway the Supreme Court, union-paid prognosticators predicted massive negative economic effects if the court ruled against unions.

    Why some federal workers aren’t scared by the threat of shutdown layoffs

    October 7, 2025 // NPR has not learned of any layoffs due to the shutdown since congressional appropriations lapsed on Oct. 1, although many federal agencies have filed reorganization and reduction-in-force plans with the administration as a result of a February executive order and subsequent guidance directing them to do so.

    Frozen feud: How Trump and the Supreme Court helped put historic Whole Foods union bid on ice

    October 7, 2025 // When the NLRB will regain members depends on how quickly the Republican-led U.S. Senate moves to confirm two nominees picked by Trump in July, Boeing's chief labor counsel and an NLRB career staffer. A Senate committee is set to hold hearings on Trump's nominees on Wednesday. An NLRB spokesman did not respond to a request for comment about the delays. William Cowen, the board's acting general counsel, in an August press release addressing efforts in several states to pass new labor protections said the agency's work has "largely been unaffected" by the lack of quorum.

    Trump’s NLRB Nominees Get Grilled While Board Faces Uncertain Future

    October 3, 2025 // If confirmed by the whole Senate, Mayer and Murphy will join the NLRB’s only member, Democratic appointee David A. Prouty, returning the usually five-person board to a three-person quorum with two GOP members and one Democratic one. Historically, the political affiliation of the board members breaks along a 3-2 split, with the majority coming from the president’s political party. With a quorum, the board should be able to return to its work of helping settle labor disputes as outlined under the National Labor Relations Act.