First Circuit ruling limits whistleblower protection under section 1514A(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to employees of public companies *

USA - February 21 2012
As a matter of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently considered whether § 1514A(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) applies to those employed by a contractor or subcontractor of a public company.

Co-authors: Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Peter N. Farley , Jade A. Logan .

---

New NLRB ruling curbs arbitration agreements, raises tensions with Supreme Court precedent *

USA - January 19 2012
In a decision certain to invite legal challenge, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held that employment arbitration agreements that require employees to waive their rights to collective or class actions violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Co-authors: Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Peter N. Farley , S. Lawrence Polk, Gabriel A. Mendel , Lewis S. Wiener.

---

U.S. district court retroactively applies Dodd-Frank whistleblower restriction to bar arbitration provision in employment agreement *

USA - March 11 2011
In Pezza v. Investors Capital Corp., a Massachusetts federal district court held recently that Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower protections to bar enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in whistleblower challenges, applies retroactively.

Co-authors: Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Roshal Erskine , Christopher W. Hammond.

---

Lessons learned as court denies motion to dismiss FLSA collective action that alleges financial advisors misclassified as independent contractors *

USA - August 18 2010
A California federal court recently refused to dismiss a putative class/collective action against Waddell & Reed, Inc., alleging that the financial services firm misclassified its financial advisors as independent contractors rather than employees.

Co-authors: Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, S. Trent Myers.

---

Supreme Court makes it more difficult for employees to prove age discrimination claims *

USA - June 22 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a plaintiff bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action.

Co-authors: Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Abigail J. Politzer, Lisa Combs Jern, Christopher W. Hammond, Nathan D. Chapman.

---