On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that employers only need to prove that employees are exempt under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) to defeat a wage and hour claim. This decision replaces the tougher "clear and convincing" standard that had been applied by some courts prior to this decision.

The FLSA requires an employer to pay overtime to employees unless the employer can prove that the employees fall under an exemption, such as being an Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees.

In the case before SCOTUS, the employees claimed that they were misclassified as outside salesmen and sued their employer for overtime pay, liquidated damages (double damages), and attorneys' fees. 

The lower court sided with the employees, in using the tougher "clear and convincing" standard, but the employer appealed while arguing that it only had to prove that the exemption applied by a preponderance of the evidence. SCOTUS agreed with the employer and sent the case back to the lower court to reexamine the facts to determine the applicability of the exemption under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 

Regardless, the message is clear: Employers now have a lower hurdle when defending a wage and hour case in proving that an exemption applies to a wage and hour claim under the FLSA. 

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its decision for Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC, No. 22-660 (U.S. Feb. 8, 2024). 

The Court held that "[a] whistleblower who invokes [Sarbanes-Oxley] must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with 'retaliatory intent.'”

As such, whistleblowers now have a much lower burden when they are retaliated against for reporting to supervisors or the government their reasonable belief of financial crimes, like wire fraud, securities fraud, violating the SEC, or federal law. 

Discrimination victims may only recover compensatory damages and injunctive relief, not punitive damages or emotional distress damages, when they bring cases under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Title IX of the Educational Amendments, unless Congress acts NOW! 

As a desk reference:

1. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 bars funding recipients from discriminating because of disability;
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act forbids race, color, and national origin discrimination in federally funded programs or activities; 
3. Title IX of the Educational Amendments prohibits sex-based discrimination education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance; and
4. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act outlaws discrimination on any of the proceeding grounds, in addition to age, by healthcare entities receiving federal funds.

Until April 28, 2022, it remained an open question whether discrimination victims could recover emotional distress damages under those 4 federal statutes. Without emotional distress damages, a victim's recovery is limited because discrimination under these statutes do not concern fixed damages, like in employment where there is back-pay and forward-pay. Instead, most victims only experience humiliation, frustration, and loss of dignity when they are discriminated in healthcare, education, or by general recipients of federal funding. Nonetheless, the US Supreme Court ruled that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in discrimination cases brought under these 4 statutes when it issued its decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. 

The case involved an accommodation request by a deaf and legally blind physical therapy recipient who requested an American Sign Language Interpreter at her sessions. You know, so that she could communicate and all. But, the provider said no, which was clearly an act of discrimination and not at issue before the Court. Instead, the Court was faced with determining whether the discrimination victim could recover emotional distress damages under the applicable statutes. 

Stated otherwise, the Court was charged with determining what recovery was available to a victim of discrimination where the Court had previously ruled that punitive damages were unavailable under the 4 statutes. So, what was left? Shouldn't emotional distress damages compensate a victim for their terrible and dehumanizing experience? 

No, said the Supreme Court because these 4 statutes were enacted under Congress' Spending Clause authority and such statutes are analyzed as contracts where defendants must have received clear notice of exposure to emotional distress damages for them to be recoverable. 

Yet, this clearly devastating decision to discrimination victims also has a clear solution. Congress needs to amend these 4 statutes today and provide clear notice that emotional distress damages are recoverable in all discrimination cases. Congress needs to act now. 

What happens when there is "an employment dispute between a religious employer and an applicant who was not hired because he disagreed with that employer’s religious views?" 

Stated otherwise, isn't allowing an employer to deny a job to someone who disagrees with their religious views a license to discriminate? 

To get specific, what should happen if a religious employer refuses to hire a bisexual applicant in a same-sex relationship just because of such orientation and relationship status? 

Should it matter if that applicant applied to work as a staff attorney rather than as a minister for the employer? 

While the US Supreme Court declined their opportunity to let us know for sure, with binding precedent, in Seattle's Union Gospel Mission v. Woods, their denial of certiorari seemingly indicates that they are inclined to allow religious employers to discriminate against same-sex individuals and prevent such individuals from working in any aspect within the organization, even outside of a religious job like a minister. 

All healthcare facilities that receive Medicare and/or Medicaid funding must ensure that their covered saff are vaccinated against COVID after the Supreme Court stayed injunctions that were preventing the implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Interim Final Rule.

To be clear, the rule does not cover those healthcare workers with medical and religious exemptions and those who telework full-time. 

In permitting the mandate to be implemented, the Supreme Court found exactly what it said was lacking in the OSHA vaccine mandate case, to wit: specific language in a statute authorizing Biden's Executive Branch to impose a mandate. 

According to the Court, the core mission of the Department of Health and Human Services "is to ensure that the healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients protect their patients’ health and safety." In fact, the Court found that “infection prevention and control program designed . . . to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections” are precisely within the Department's charge. 

In addressing its divergent opinions, between OSHA and Healthcare, the Supreme Court explained:

The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have.

In staying the OSHA vaccine mandate, the Supreme Court wrote "that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate."

As the Court explained "permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization." The problem, as set forth by the Supreme Court, was that the mandate was indiscriminately applied. However, and to be CLEAR, the problem was not that it was unconstitutional, violated federalism, or anything else. 

The Supreme Court did not rule that either:

• The Federal Government cannot issue a nationwide vaccine mandate; or 
• Biden's Executive Branch cannot issue a nationwide vaccine mandate. 

In fact, the concurring opinion set it simply, "that power rests with the States and Congress, not OSHA."  

That is not to say OSHA has no power to regulate workplaces with respect to COVID. The Court carefully said OSHA does have power by writing that it was "not [] say[ing] OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible." As such, the Supreme Court invited a new mandate to be issued by OSHA and suggested that it targets COVID researchers or risks associated with crowded / cramped environments. 

As the concurring opinion explained, this case was decided on the Major Questions Doctrine, "'[w]e expect Congress to speak clearly' if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions 'of vast economic and political significance.'" Here, Congress did not clearly grant OSHA the power to do make this indiscriminate mandate. 

The fact that they didn't doesn't mean that they can't. Should Congress authorize OSHA now? 

Before the US Supreme Court on Monday, November 1, 2021, is Texas's abortion law, which seems to be about stopping abortions by changing the standard from viability, as is the current law under Roe v. Wade, to 6 weeks into pregnancy, but it's about so much more and you should really care. 

The law deputizes Texans to police their neighbors in a way that should ring out fears that we are transitioning into a dystopian society like a real-world Handmaid's Tale. 

Imagine for a second, if you can, that this law has nothing to do with abortions (regardless, if you are pro-life or pro-choice) and ask yourself, how do you feel about your neighbors receiving $10,000 for catching you speeding on the highway, or shoplifting, or putting an extension on your house without a permit. In Texas, if you catch someone violating the 6-week abortion rule, you can get paid $10,000. Crazy. 

Ironically, Texas's law has survived scrutiny under Roe v. Wade because of this unique enforcement scheme. In fact, the US Supreme Court previously denied an application for injunctive relief, on September 1, 2021, by explaining that there was no "private-citizen respondent before us [who had] intention to enforce the law" [they sued the government rather than a citizen enforcing the law to get $10,000] and therefore, the Court ruled that there was a procedural hurdle preventing it from making "any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law" when it comes to abortions. 

Now, on November 1, 2021, the Court will hear arguments as to whether the "United States [may] bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit SB. 8 from being enforced." If they can stop a judge from granting the $10,000, they stop the law. 

Back in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act capped SALT deductions at $10,000. 

To remind you, SALT deductions permit "taxpayers to deduct from their taxable income all the money they paid in state and local income and property taxes." As a result, it saves residents in high tax states from having to pay a lot of money to the federal government because they already paid a lot of tax to their state. States like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland have really high state and local taxes and therefore, residents of these states were hurt the most when Congress capped SALT deduction at $10,000. 

To fight for their citizens and for their sovereignty, these four states sued the federal government "asserting that Congress's new cap on the SALT deduction either is unconstitutional on its face of unconstitutionally coerces them to abandon their preferred fiscal policies." 

Stated otherwise, the states argued "that the SALT deduction cap violates both Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment [and the Sixteenth Amendment] because it coerces them to lower taxes or cut spending."

The states lost in New York v. Yellen and the $10,000 cap remains. 

According to the Second Circuit, the states failed to demonstrate "how the 2017 cap on the deduction unconstitutionally undermines their state sovereign authority over fiscal matters or their ability to raise revenue." 

Yet, it seems pretty intuitive, no?

Do you think this should go to the Supreme Court? 

If not, will a Democratic Congress, led by a Senator from New York, act to reinstitute the full SALT Tax Deduction, which has been the law of the land since 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified and Congress first became empowered to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states"? 

In their best written papers to date, NYC school employees argued to the Supreme Court that they need a stay of the October 1, 2021 deadline to get vaccinated. 

They argue that the vaccination order prevents them from lawfully pursuing their occupation, which is a fundamental Due Process right. They claim that their alternative options of private school teaching, adult or continuing education teaching, or private tutoring are not pursuing their occupations completely. Nonetheless, they fail to address whether taking "their certifications and seek[ing] employment in any other public school system... in the State," would be pursuing their occupations completely, as NYC had argued before the Second Circuit. 

Regardless, the issue of whether the employees can still pursue their profession is where the case is likely to be decided. In their opposition before the Second Circuit, the City had argued and emphasized that Due Process protection is only afforded if "a plaintiff is completely prohibited from engaging in his or her chosen profession." However, the school employees now argue that "a violation of one’s fundamental right to pursue an occupation exists and gives rise to a due process claim where there is less than a complete inability to practice one’s profession." Which one is it? Who is right? 

What do you think the law should be? 

The other argument advanced by the school employees is that the vaccination order should have given them an option to opt out of vaccination for weekly testing because school staff should be treated equally to firefighters and police officers who have that option. While this seems like a good argument in an initial read of the papers, the school employees' argument that firefighters and police officers present a greater risk to spread COVID because they have contact with the public as opposed to school children who have less severe COVID fails the smell test when it's considered that adults can be vaccinated and those under 12 years of age cannot. However, we will see. 

On August 27, 2021, the US Supreme Court opened the floodgates for evictions throughout the United States in the case of Alabama Association of Realtors v. DHHS. 

Landlords, have you called your attorney yet to start the eviction process? 

Investors, are you ready for the housing market to swing because of a flood of inventory? 

Tenants, have you started to make moving arrangements and tried to settle your arrears for less money? 

Wow, can you feel that tsunami coming? 

Make no mistake, this is the first domino to fall in our housing market's shift into a buyer's market on fundamentals. Are you ready? 

For the legal context of what transpired, the CDC had issued a moratorium on evictions in counties with substantial or high levels of COVID-19, which we explained here. That moratorium was thrown-out by the District Court for the District of Columbia, but that Court knew that the issue would get to the Supreme Court so they stayed (a/k/a, paused) the effectiveness of their Order overturning the moratorium until the Supreme Court could weigh-in, which we explained here. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed-in and the eviction moratorium is ineffective, unlawful, and unenforceable. 

To be clear, the Supreme Court did not weigh-in on the policy of an eviction moratorium. They didn't rule as to whether it is a good idea, good policy, or needed for our country. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled "that the statute on which the CDC relies does not grant it the authority it claims." In plain language, the eviction moratorium was thrown-out because the CDC's basis for imposing the moratorium does not afford it that power.

You see, Executive Branch agencies, like the CDC, can't do whatever they want. They need power before they act, which comes from Congress. Without that power, they can't do anything. They can't issue regulations, rules, or directives. This power, called an enabling statute, was missing from the eviction moratorium, according to the Supreme Court, which explained that the power relied upon by the CDC was meant "to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination," not eviction moratoriums. According to the Supreme Court, "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends." 

Knowing that, you should be wondering if Congress will act and impose its own eviction moratorium? 

For landlords, investors, and tenants that is a really important question given that the Supreme Court acknowledged, in its decision, that "[a]t least 80% of the country, including between 6 and 17 million tenants at risk of eviction, [fell] within the moratorium." 

However, we doubt that Congress will issue another moratorium because it can't get anything done with its division in the Senate. Further, the Supreme Court reminded Congress, in its decision, that a federal "moratorium intrudes into an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship." 

As a result, evictions are about to flood the court systems. Are you ready for the eviction tsunami? 

Going forward, the existing prohibition on the filing of new non-essential matters will continue. However, although our planning is ongoing, starting next Monday, April 13, we will take certain preliminary steps to open up access - remote access - to the courts for non-essential pending cases. This means that judges should review their case inventories to identify cases in which court conferences can be helpful in advancing the progress of the case, including achieving a resolution of the case. Judges can also schedule conferences at the request of the attorneys, and can be available during normal court hours to address discovery disputes and other ad hoc concerns. The conferences will need to be conducted remotely, by Skype or by telephone. Judges' personal staff will be able to assist judges remotely, as needed.

Going forward, the existing prohibition on the filing of new non-essential matters will continue.

Perhaps the changes forced by COVID-19 will open the courts' eyes to the increased efficiency and productivity that technology can bring to our stubborn industry. Listen to our podcast about the future of the courts HERE - Court System is Archaic | Modernization Needed ASAP.