We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 14

A welcome ‘waive’ of Second Circuit cases: class action waivers deemed enforceable
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • August 20 2013

For the better part of the last decade, the Second Circuit routinely and consistently struck down class action waivers in arbitration provisions. As


Fifth Circuit defines "whistleblower" narrowly under Dodd-Frank
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • July 18 2013

On July 17, 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued the First Circuit court decision interpreting Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision


The buck stops here!: Gristedes Foods CEO may be personally liable for FLSA claims
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • July 16 2013

Last week, in Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, Docket No. 11-4035-cv (July 9, 2013), the Second Circuit held that Gristedes Foods CEOand current NYC


U.S. Supreme Court rejects the mixed-motive analysis in retaliation claims
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • June 27 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") must prove


U.S. Supreme Court adopts a narrow definition of a supervisor in harassment claims
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • June 27 2013

Resolving a split among the circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a "supervisor" for Title VII harassment liability is limited to those who have


Fifth Circuit to consider In Re D.R. Horton in light of recent court of appeals decision striking down recess appointments to NLRB
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • February 5 2013

A recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down several recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board has cast doubt over


Duty to disclose for employers claiming “competitive disadvantage” in labor negotiations
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • December 7 2012

In a divided opinion published on December 4th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provided a reminder that employers should always be prepared to substantiate representations made during labor negotiations and clarified the scope of disclosure obligations for employers relying on competitive pressures as a basis for seeking concessions


Ringing in the new year: new California laws taking effect in 2013
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • December 4 2012

As the new year rounds the corner, it is important to stay abreast of the ever-changing legal landscape in California


Governor Cuomo Signs Amendment to New York Wage Deduction Law
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • September 12 2012

Since 2008, the New York State Department of Labor has taken an increasingly narrow and stringent view as to what can be considered a permissible wage deduction, even in situations where the employee had authorized the wage deduction and the deduction was something that was beneficial to the employee


Recent NLRB decisions challenge at-will disclaimers and may impact HR investigations
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • August 27 2012

Earlier this year, in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 6, 2012), the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) held that mandatory arbitration agreements requiring all employment disputes to be resolved through individual, bilateral arbitration violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because such agreements impermissibly restrict employees’ rights under Section 7 to engage in “concerted action for mutual aid or protection.”