In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015), the Supreme Court held that an agency, like the Department of Labor, is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The...Read More

In Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290 (1959) the Supreme Court held that the business of making personal loans to individuals does not constitute “sales of . . . services” by a “retail or service establishment,” within the meaning of the retail and service establishment exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This...Read More

The Virginia Pay Transparency Law (“VPTL”), VA Code § 40.1-28.7:9, prohibits an employer from discharging or taking other retaliatory action against employees for discussing their pay or any other employees’ pay. The law is important because protecting employees’ right to discuss their compensation makes it easier for employees to negotiate for better pay and to...Read More

In Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008), the Supreme Court held that for an employee’s filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be deemed a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial...Read More

The North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (NCREDA) prohibits employers from retaliating against or penalizing employees for engaging in certain protected activities. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 95-240 to 95-245. In general, the activities protected by NCREDA involve employees in good faith taking action or threatening to take action under certain North Carolina worker’s rights...Read More

The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, provides that any person who knowingly submits false claims to the government is liable for triple the government’s damages plus penalties for each false claim. In addition to allowing the federal government to pursue those who submit false claims, the FCA allows private citizens...Read More

In Hoffmann-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989), the Supreme Court held that under the collective action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, District Courts have discretion in Age Discrimination in Employment Act cases to facilitate judicial notice to potential plaintiffs with similar claims, giving them the opportunity to join the case. To...Read More

The North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act (NCEEPA) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, or handicap.  The law is codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 143-422.1 to 143-422.3. The NCEEPA applies to employers who regularly employ 15 or more employees. While the statute does not provide a private...Read More

In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice did not create a private right of action for disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Sandoval addressed the question of whether assumedly valid regulations under § 602...Read More

Tim Coffield, attorney, on the Supreme Court case of Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999)Read More