On January 16, 2024, in the case of Warren v. U.S. DOL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia involving a challenge to the DOL’s Independent Contractor Rule, four freelance writers/editors sued the Department of Labor claiming the Independent Contractor Rule amounts to a concerted effort to force them into employment relationships they neither want nor need. On July 24, 2024, the court received submissions of cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. Before that, several amicus (friend of the court) briefs were filed. The court has not yet issued a decision on the cross-motions to dismiss.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on January 31, 2014, in Fisher v. Airgas that an employee out on cancer leave who used a hemp-based product called “Free M” for relief of treatment pain took a random drug test and tested positive and was terminated. The employee sued and won, and the company appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The company relied on the “honest belief” doctrine. This doctrine shields companies from liability for allegedly discriminatory employment actions if they offer legitimate reasons based on incorrect information that they reasonably trusted at the time they made the decision. The Court of Appeals ruled against the company and stated that the company could not rely on the “honest belief” doctrine without adequately investigating that the employee’s use of the hemp could have caused a false-positive test result.

In another challenge to the Independent Contractor Rule, on February 8, 2024, Frisard’s Transportation, LLC v. U.S. DOL in the Eastern District of Louisiana suit was filed by the Liberty Justice Center and the Pelican Inst. Co. for Public Policy on behalf of the company. The company employs 30 independent owner-operator drivers in the State of Louisiana. The current status of this case as of July 3, 2024, in order to stay and administratively close the case was issued by the court. However, the plaintiffs notified the court of their intent to appeal the court’s previous order denying their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As of August 26, 2024, the current status of the Independent Contractor Rule is that amicus curiae briefs are being filed in the appellate case.

The Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act (PWFA) was issued as a final regulation on April 15, 2024, by the EOCC. Numerous examples of reasonable accommodations under this act include additional breaks to drink water, eat, or use a restroom; a stool to sit on while working; time off for health care appointments; temporary reassignment; temporary suspension of particular job duties; telework; or time off to recover from childbirth or miscarriage. There is currently a lawsuit brought by 19 states against the regulation. Also, 23 other states have filed a brief in defense of the regulation. Oral argument took place on June 3, 2024, and on June 21, 2024, and an order was issued denying a motion for an injunction pending appeal. The PWFA remains in force while appeals concerning challenges are litigated.

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court heard Muldrow v. City of St. Louis about a plainclothes police officer who was transferred to a lesser position that has the same pay rate, but different hours and duties sued claiming sex discrimination. A lower court tossed out the case saying that the plaintiff did not suffer any significant harm to build or bring the suit. The Supreme Court disagreed stating that a worker does not have to show that the harm incurred by sex discrimination was significant or serious.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on April 29, 2024, regarding an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations request. In the case of Yanick v. the Kroger Co., a bakery worker returned to her position after breast cancer leave with her doctor’s OK to return to full duty. However, she struggled with certain tasks and was demoted. She filed an ADA lawsuit and the court sided with her saying the employer should have inferred that her comments about her physical struggles amounted to a request for an ADA accommodation. The takeaway from this decision is that as with the the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees do not need to say any magic words to request an ADA accommodation. You should ensure your managers know what may qualify and elevate subtle requests by an employee to the level of accommodations.

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court in a decision titled Loper Brite Enterprises v. Raimond held that judges cannot defer to a government agencies interpretation of the law. Instead, judges must exercise “independent judgment” and give statutes their “best meaning.” Judges can still consider agency guidance when that guidance is persuasive, long-standing, and consistent. But they cannot treat that guidance as “binding.” They must interpret statutes for themselves. This decision could make it harder for agencies to make rules. For example, instead of defending their rules as “reasonable” interpretations of a statute, they will now have to defend the rules as the “best” interpretations of the statute, and in court, they will be on equal footing with parties trying to challenge the rules. This decision overturned the Chevron rule.

In an interesting decision on July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Corner Post, Inc. v. the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that the statute of limitations for challenging the rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) begins to run only when the challenger has been injured by the rule. The previous statute limitations that was applied stated that the 6-year statute of limitations began when the act became a final rule. The ruling means that a challenger can sue to block a rule that has been on the books for many years.

On August 30, 2024, the Biden–Harris administration published a proposed rule to protect indoor and outdoor workers from extreme heat. As indicated in the standard, the heat injury and illness prevention standard will require employers to develop an injury and illness prevention plan (HIIPP) to control heat hazards in workplaces affected by excessive heat. The plan would require employers to evaluate heat risks and the risk to workers and implement requirements for drinking water, rest breaks, and controlling indoor heat. As for outdoor workers, a heat illness prevention plan will have to be developed for each work site.

On September 4, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule banning noncompetes went into effect. Challenges have been made against the new standard, however, in only one case was an injunction granted and that injunction was limited to the parties to the lawsuit. That injunction was granted in the Northern District of Texas. In a similar case filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the court denied the request for an injunction. So while legal challenges are pending, the noncompete ban is in full force and effect.

Finally, OSHA recently issued its top 10 most strictly cited workplace safety standards for FY 2024. They are as follows:
1. General Requirements for Fall Protection (1926.501)
2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)
3. Ladders (1926.1053)
4. Respiratory Protection (1910.134)
5. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147)
6. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178)
7. Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503) (specifically 1926.503 (a) and (b)
8. Scaffolding (1926.451)
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment – I and Face Protection (1926.102)
10. Machine Guarding (1910.212)