Major U.S. Corporations Are Trying to Challenge the Constitutionality of the NLRB

By: Vasileios Karamanlis

Within the past year, large U.S. corporations have been targeted for violations of worker’s rights by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). For example, Amazon has been accused of attempting to end efforts to unionize by interrogating workers, threatening to call the police on them and demoting workers involved in union organizing.[1]  Similarly, SpaceX was accused of requiring employees who were laid off or fired to sign agreements that barred them from joining class-action lawsuits against them.[2]  These accusations come at the wake of a surge in union drives and contemporary equality efforts.[3]  Conversely, this also comes at the wake of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of various regulatory agencies.[4]  Within the last couple of years alone, administrative law has been shifting in a direction that makes it more difficult for the government to protect workers.[5]  With increased pressure from the NLRB and a new found wave of conservative support, these corporate behemoths are choosing to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and are fighting back.[6]

            Filed January 2024, SpaceX was one of the first companies to take action in an attempt to hobble the NLRB.[7]  Following these claims are also filings made by Trader Joe’s[8], Amazon[9], and Starbucks[10] in an effort to remove the regulatory powers of the agency. The recent SpaceX filing claims that the NLRB is engaging in “an unlawful attempt . . . to subject SpaceX to an administrative proceeding whose structure violates Article II, the Fifth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”[11]  SpaceX contends that the existence of the NLRB violates the separation of powers since it mixes executive and judicial functions.[12]  Additionally, they contend that the NLRB’s use of administrative judges[13] is a violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial.[14] 

These claims can simply be answered using case law. In 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the NLRB.[15]  In doing so, the court made it clear that workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively.[16]  With the Jones & Laughlin Steel decision, the court reinforced that Congress had the power to create these agency structure guidelines which would help the agency function well.[17]  For example, by not allowing presidents to replace all of the NLRB’s administrative law judges for any reason or just because they feel like it, Congress intended to ensure the independence of those judges.[18]

These lawsuits can be seen as an attempt to remove these independent agencies and prevent a neutral process.[19] Moreover, considering the current conservative majority and their history, it is a toss-up whether the court will adhere to their historical rulings.[20]  If these corporations succeed in their endeavors, there is a fear that the court could be shifting backwards toward a more big-business focused perspective, similar to the approach of the “Lochner Era.”[21]  While there is room for optimism,[22] an issue currently on the docket regarding Chevron means the future of the NLRB could be uncertain.[23]

---

[1] See Kate Andrias, Amazon, SpaceX and Other Companies Are Arguing the Government Agency That Has Protected Labor Rights Since 1935 Is Actually Unconstitutional, The Conversation (Mar. 25, 2024, 8:40 AM), https://theconversation.com/amazon-spacex-and-other-companies-are-arguing-the-government-agency-that-has-protected-labor-rights-since-1935-is-actually-unconstitutional-225611.

[2] Daniel Wiessner, SpaceX Forced Workers to Sign Illegal Severance Agreements, US Agency Claims, Reuters, (Mar. 21, 2024, 9:05 PM), https://www.reuters.com/business/spacex-forced-workers-sign-illegal-severance-agreements-us-agency-claims-2024-03-21/.

[3] See Steven Greenhouse, Major US Corporations Threaten to Return Labor to ‘Law of the Jungle’, The Guardian (Mar. 10, 2024, 7:00 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/10/starbucks-trader-joes-spacex-challenge-labor-board.

[4] Id.

[5] See W. Virginia v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 597 U.S. 697, 700 (2022) (holding that Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan); see also Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 497 (2018) (holding that neither the Arbitration Act’s saving clause nor the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) supersede Congress’s instructions in the Federal Arbitration Act).

[6] See Greenhouse, supra note 3.

[7] See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Space Expl. Technologies Corp. v. NLRB, 2024 WL 98691 (S.D.Tex. Jan 4, 2024).

[8] Max Nesterak, Trader Joe’s Argues National Labor Relations Board Is Unconstitutional — And Other Labor News, Minn. Reformer (Feb. 2, 2024, 9:58 AM), https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/02/02/trader-joes-argues-national-labor-relations-board-is-unconstitutional-and-other-labor-news/.

[9] Haleluya Hadero, Amazon Argues That National Labor Board Is Unconstitutional, Joining SpaceX and Trader Joe’s, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/amazon-nlrb-unconstitutional-union-labor-459331e9b77f5be0e5202c147654993e (last updated Feb. 16, 2024, 5:31 PM).

[10]  Andrew Afifian, Starbucks Worker: NLRB Is Unconstitutional, Dall. Express (Feb. 3, 2024), https://dallasexpress.com/national/starbucks-worker-nlrb-is-unconstitutional/.

[11] Space Expl. Technologies Corp., 2024 WL 98691, at 1.

[12] See Andrias, supra note 1.

[13] Who We Are, NLRB, https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are (last visited Mar. 24, 2024).

[14] See Andrias, supra note 1.

[15] See N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 49 (1937) (“Our conclusion is that the order of the Board was within its competency and that the act is valid as here applied.”).

[16] See id. at 33.  

[17] See Humphrey’s Ex’r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (referencing Congress’s power to discharge its duties independently).

[18] See id. at 629.

[19] See Eric Katz, Supreme Court Appears Ready to Deal Another Blow to Federal Agencies’ Administrative Powers, Gov’t Exec. (Nov. 29, 2023), https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-appears-ready-deal-another-blow-federal-agencies-administrative-powers/392348/.

[20] See id.

[21] Kate Andrias, Constitutional Clash: Labor, Capital, and Democracy, 118 Nw. U. L. Rev. 985 (2024).

[22] See id. at 992.

[23] Amy Howe, Supreme Court Likely to Discard Chevron, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 17, 2024, 6:58 PM),

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/.

Fighting Corporate Greed: Flight Attendants Go on Strike for Higher Wages

---

By: Jennifer Parlow

On February 13, 2024, thousands of flight attendants participated in a “Worldwide Day of Action” to renegotiate their contracts.[1]  The action took place for a total of 24 hours at 32 airports around the world, involving three separate flight attendant unions that represent major airlines in the United States.[2]  At the time, roughly two thirds of flight attendants in the United States were involved in contract negotiations, including flight attendants at United, American, Southwest, and Alaska Airlines.[3] Flight attendants picketed and rallied to demand higher pay.[4]  They are frustrated by the fact that pilots were granted historic pay raises last year, while flight attendants continue to get paid at a rate that has not increased in years.[5]  For instance, flight attendants at American Airlines have not received a raise in approximately five years.[6]  Most flight attendants argue that they have not been adequately compensated for working through the pandemic, dealing with the rising costs of inflation, and taking on the responsibility of passenger safety.[7] 

            Boarding pay is one of the major issues that has contributed to flight attendants’ frustrations.[8]  The hourly pay for flight attendants begins when the aircraft door closes.[9]  However, there are numerous tasks that flight attendants must complete before that point, which involve briefings, pre-flight safety checks, and boarding the passengers, which is considered a laborious process.[10]  Some passengers require special assistance, especially unaccompanied minors and people with service animals.[11]  Therefore, flight attendants argue that it’s unfair that these tasks are completed before “the actual clock is ticking . . . to start getting paid.”[12]  Last December, flight attendants at Southwest Airlines rejected a proposed contract agreement because it failed to include boarding pay.[13]  Although American Airlines’ flight attendants reached an agreement that grants them half of their hourly wage during the boarding process, they are still not satisfied.[14]  Hence, flight attendants are willing to strike until they receive what they deserve: a decent paycheck.[15]

            Fortunately, following the Worldwide Day of Action, thousands of flight attendants entered into contract negotiations in the United States.[16]  To the success of these demonstrations, the union representing approximately 20,000 flight attendants at Southwest Airlines reached a tentative agreement on a new contract this past March.[17]  The terms of the contract are currently being negotiated, but the union plans to include full retroactive pay that dates back to the last contract agreement.[18]  Flight attendants could receive nearly $20,000 in retroactive pay; the union plans to grant such a large amount of retroactive pay due to the many years it has taken to reach a new agreement.[19]  Southwest’s tentative agreement amounts to a huge win for its flight attendants, and it should help other flight attendant unions who are in the process of negotiating their contracts.[20]  Hopefully, Southwest’s agreement “sets the standard for other flight attendants who are also bargaining.”[21]

---

[1] Flight Attendants Fight Back: Historic, Powerful Worldwide Day of Action, Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA (Feb. 16, 2024),

https://www.afacwa.org/flight_attendants_fight_back_historic_powerful_worldwide_day_of_action.

[2] See id.; Flight Attendants Hold Picket Signs and Rallies in Protest for New Contracts, Pay Raises, CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airlines-american-flight-attendants-protest-higher-pay-new-contracts/ (last updated Feb. 13, 2024, 7:47 PM) (explaining the scope of the Worldwide Day of Action and the entities that were involved).

[3] See Andrea Hsu, Flight Attendants Across the Country Picket for Better Pay and Working Conditions, NPR (Feb. 13, 2024, 5:13 PM), https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1231221280/flight-attendants-across-the-country-picket-for-better-pay-and-working-condition.

[4] See Flight Attendants Hold Picket Signs and Rallies in Protest for New Contracts, Pay Raises, supra note 2.

[5] See id.

[6] See Hsu, supra note 3.

[7] See id. (outlining the different reasons why flight attendants feel that their current rate of pay is inadequate).

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See id.

[12] Id.

[13] See id.; see Flight Attendants Hold Picket Signs and Rallies in Protest for New Contracts, Pay Raises, supra note 2 (highlighting the importance of boarding pay in recent contract negotiations).

[14] See Hsu, supra note 3.

[15] See id.

[16] See Flight Attendants Fight Back: Historic, Powerful Worldwide Day of Action, supra note 1.

[17] See Southwest Flight Attendants to Vote on New Contract After Rejecting Previous Offers, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/southwest-airlines-reaches-tentative-agreement-with-flight-attendants-union-2024-03-20/ (last updated Mar. 20, 2024, 11:56 PM).

[18] See Gary Leff, $6.3 Billion Game-Changer: Everything Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants Scored with New Contract, View From the Wing (Mar. 27, 2024), https://viewfromthewing.com/6-3-billion-game-changer-everything-southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-scored-with-new-contract/.

[19] See Gary Leff, Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants Will Get $20,000 Checks, View From the Wing (Mar. 26, 2024), https://viewfromthewing.com/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-will-get-20000-checks/.

[20] See Leff, supra note 21.

[21] Id.

---

A Peek Behind the Curtain: New Pay Transparency Laws Give More Power to Employees

By Robert M. Calvin

An emerging labor trend in the United States is to require pay transparency during the job application and promotion process.[1]  The States enacting these laws aim to narrow the gender and racial wage gaps as well as empower job applicants during the hiring process.[2]  Pay transparency is salient because it helps deter discrimination, unfair promotion practices, and helps bring management “closer to the people” with uniformity in pay practices.[3]  Some of the leading States in this matter are California and New York.[4]

            California added the pay transparency law in January of 2023.[5]  It requires anyone with fifteen or more employees to include a pay scale for all job postings.[6]  That includes when using third-party job posting services.[7]  They are also required to maintain records of job title and wage rate history for all employees for the duration of employment plus three years.[8]  Employers with less than fifteen are not immune though, as they would be required to produce a pay scale upon reasonable request.[9]  Violations of the law will result in civil penalties.[10]

            New York features a similar law, which went into effect in September of 2023.[11]  New York’s law applies to all employers, regardless of size, and requires the pay range to be disclosed for job postings, promotions, and transfers.[12]  The pay range is the maximum and minimum wage that the employer expects to pay for the position.[13]  New York also protects out of state employees so long as those employees report to a supervisor, office, or site within New York State.[14]  They also protect against retaliation against people who exercise their rights under this law[15] with civil penalties.[16]

            California and New York’s transparency laws are extremely similar with only minor differences. Both ultimately serve the same function and aim to make the workplace fairer.[17]  The  States are the laboratories of democracy, and as such, have the ability to try out these kinds of ideas.[18]  The nation should pay close attention to the effects of these laws in the coming years and consider enacting them across the board. 

---

[1] See Caitlin Harrington, Pay Transparency is Sweeping Across the US, Wired (Sept. 18, 2023 7:00 AM), https://www.wired.com/story/pay-transparency-is-sweeping-across-us/.

[2] See Alonzo Martinez, U.S. Legislation That May Impact Background Screening in 2023: Part Three – Pay Transparency Laws Address Wage Equality and Negotiation Empowerment, Forbes (June 8, 2023 8:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/alonzomartinez/2023/06/08/us-legislation-that-may-impact-background-screening-in-2023-part-three–pay-transparency-laws-address-wage-equality-and-negotiation-empowerment/?sh=3b0cada14430.

[3] See Gowri Ramachandran, Pay Transparency, 116 Penn St. L. Rev. 1043, 1062-1067 (2012).

[4] See Michelle Peng, How to Prepare for New Pay Transparency Laws in California and Washington, Time (Dec. 20, 2022 4:11 PM), https://time.com/charter/6242729/ca-pay-transparency/.

[5] See Roy Maurer, State by State: Salary History Bans and Pay Transparency Laws, SHRM (Aug. 23, 2023), https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/state-state-salary-history-bans-pay-transparency-laws.

[6] Cal. Lab. Code § 432.3(c)(3) (Deering 2023).

[7] Cal. Lab. Code § 432.3(c)(5) (Deering 2023).

[8] Cal. Lab. Code § 432.3(c)(4) (Deering 2023).

[9] Cal. Lab. Code § 432.3(c)(1) (Deering 2023).

[10] Cal. Lab. Code § 432.3(d)(4) (Deering 2023).

[11] See Maurer, supra note 5.

[12] N.Y. Lab. Law § 194-b(1)(a) (Consol. 2023).

[13] N.Y. Lab. Law § 194-b(6)(a) (Consol. 2023).

[14] N.Y. Lab. Law § 194-b(1)(a) (Consol. 2023).

[15] N.Y. Lab. Law § 194-b(2) (Consol. 2023).

[16] N.Y. Lab. Law § 194-b(5)(b) (Consol. 2023).

[17] See Martinez, supra note 2.

[18] See Bradley A. Blakeman, States Are the Laboratories of Democracy, The Hill (May 7, 2020 7:30 AM), https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/496524-states-are-the-laboratories-of-democracy/.

Tiny Toilers: How Brands Navigate America’s Child Labor Crisis

By: Cody Luong

Recently, the United States Department of Labor and The New York Times revealed the current scale of child labor in various industries across the country.[1] From meatpacking plants to dairy farms, exploiting underage workers has become a disturbing reality that cannot be ignored.[2]

A case that alarmed many was that of Packers Sanitation Services Inc. LTD (hereinafter “PSSI”), one of the nation’s largest food safety sanitation services providers.[3] The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division discovered that PSSI had used more than 100 children for hazardous work across eight states.[4] But it gets worse as PSSI employs the minimum work age at 13 instead of the 14 our country requires.[5] Under this type of work, minors work in overnight shifts, handling dangerous equipment and chemicals, resulting in injuries.[6] PSSI’s payment of $1.5 million in civil money penalties reflects the seriousness of the violations and the gravity of the situation.[7]

On the other hand, brands and auditing firms have been forced to rethink their practices and increase their efforts to fight child labor within their supply chains.[8] For example, Whole Foods recognized the risks associated with migrant child labor and pledged to address them.[9] Auditing firms like Arche Advisors have been flooded with requests for domestic audits focused on child labor; thus, the industry has started to undergo a paradigm shift.[10]

Upon learning of child labor within its supply chain, Ford has ramped up its auditing efforts and developed more effective protections to prevent the abuses from reoccurring.[11] Similar actions have been taken by other major players in the food and beverage industry, such as the Northwest Dairy Association and Smithfield Foods, who have initiated audits and implemented safeguards to ensure compliance with labor laws.[12]

Despite such measures, a legal loophole remains to exploit the pervasiveness of migrant child labor, such as those in the agriculture industry.[13] For instance, in the United States, “it is legal for children as young as 12 to work unlimited hours outside of school with parental approval if they’re working in agriculture.”[14] This double standard is reflected by the fact that children work longer hours and in far more hazardous conditions than any other employment, risking their education, health, and youth.[15] Shareholders are pushing for even more robust action from companies like Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms, urging them to strengthen their age verification auditing procedures and hold suppliers accountable for violations.[16]

These situations warn of the need for greater oversight and accountability within supply chains; however, it is not enough to be reactive.  Despite companies’ pledges to address migrant child labor, the reality is that they hold the reins of power within their supply chains.[17] While some may genuinely strive for compliance, others prioritize profit margins over ethical practices, leading to a culture of finding loopholes instead of solving the real problems.[18] The present fine for a child labor violation is $15,138 per child, a negligible difference for major profitable companies.[19]

The unveiling of child labor as migrant supplies in America is a wake-up call for the industry.  The brands, auditing firms, and other relevant players must take decisive action to eliminate these abuses and ensure that all workers, regardless of age or background, are treated respectfully.  Only collectively can we build a tomorrow in which child labor is truly a thing of the past.

---

[1] See More than 100 Children Illegally Employed in Hazardous Jobs, Federal Investigation Finds; Food Sanitation Contractor Pays $1.5M In Penalties, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., https://www

.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20230217-1 (2023); see also Hannah Dreier, Confronted With Child Labor in the U.S., Companies Move to Crack Down, N.Y. Times (Feb. 7, 2024),  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/us/child-labor-us-companies.html#:~:text=128-,Confronted%20With%20Child%20Labor%20in%20the%20U.S.%2C%20Companies%20Move%20to,that%20goes%20into%20their%20products.

[2] See Dreier, supra note 1.

[3] See id.

[4] See id (“Working to exhaustion, children have been crushed by construction equipment, gotten yanked into industrial machinery and fallen to their deaths from rooftops.”).

[5] See elaws Advisors, Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor, U.S. Dep’t Of Lab., https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/026.htm?_ga=2.37360423.627972887.1708403680-1596329587.1707405591.

[6] See elaws Advisors, supra note 5.

[7] See Erica MacDonald & Sylvia Bokyung St. Clair, Compliance Refresher Amid DOL Child Labor Crackdown, Law360, (Jan. 2, 2024), https://www.law360.com/articles/1779139/compliance-refresher-amid-dol-child-labor-crackdown.

[8] See Dreier, supra note 1.

[9] See id (“The changes include enhancing reviews of night shifts and shifts run by outside contractors, such as cleaning companies, and moving away from announcing audits in advance.”).

[10] See id.

[11] See id. For instance, after the Times discovered that children were working for a Ford supplier, Ford began “increasing audits and requiring that thousands of manufacturers begin looking over workers more carefully, even after they are hired.”

[12] See id (“[Smithfield] has also posted signs in Spanish and other languages around its plants emphasizing age requirements.”).

[13] Legal loophole allows child labor exploitation in the U.S., FreedomUnited (May 14, 2023), https://www.freedomunited.org/news/loophole-child-exploitation/.

[14] See id.

[15] See Zama Coursen-Neff, Child Farmworkers in the United States: A “Worst Form of Child Labor,” HRW (Nov. 7, 2011), https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/17/child-farmworkers-united-states-worst-form-child-labor

[16] See Dreier, supra note 1.

[17] See Danny Zane, Julie Irwin, & Rebecca Walker Reczek, Why Companies Are Blind to Child Labor, Harv. Bus. Rev., (Jan. 28, 2016), https://hbr.org/2016/01/why-companies-are-blind-to-child-labor.

[18] See e.g. Dorothy Atkins, Nestle Shopper Seeks Class Cert. In Child Labor Labeling Suit, Law360, (Jan. 22, 2024), https://www.law360.com/articles/1788623.

[19] See MacDonald, supra note 7.  

BOEING EMPLOYEES ALLEGE EXPOSURE TO TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE WORKPLACE CAUSED REPRODUCTIVE HARM AND BIRTH DEFECTS

By: Angelique Bouzalakos

On February 16, 2024, a Washington state judge refused to give Boeing a “free pass” in a lawsuit over alleged birth defects caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace.[1] The Judge is set to review whether Boeing had a duty to its employees future children “based on foreseeable harm.”[2] The Judge expressed his skepticism at “the Boeing Co.’s assertion that Washington courts have never recognized employers as owing a duty of care to workers’ unconceived children.”[3] The Judge asserted that if what the plaintiffs allege is true, and Boeing knew about the toxic chemical and its potential to cause birth defects, then they should not get a “free pass.”[4]

BACKGROUND

            In 1980, one of the top doctors at Boeing, Dr. Barry Dunphy, attempted to alert the company to a potentially fatal problem.[5] The doctor found that during the normal course of their employment, “tens of thousands” of workers were being exposed to hazardous amounts of toxic chemicals.[6] Among his findings, Dr. Dunphy wrote that these toxic chemicals “may result in future ‘outbreaks’ of serious illness – including sterility, fetal abnormalities, stillbirth, life-long chronic illness, cancer and death.”[7] The doctor’s notes indicated that Boeing’s President Malcolm Stamper was neither sympathetic nor happy to hear the news.[8] These notes are now being reviewed, among other documents, as evidence in a number of lawsuits all alleging that the doctor’s warnings indeed came true.[9]

            Three families, whose children all suffer from some kind of ailment (e.g., heart conditions, neurological conditions, genetic disorders), sued Boeing, alleging that Boeing failed to protect them from these toxic chemicals, and as a result, caused birth defects in their children.[10] It is noted that Dr. Dunphy’s warning “is one of the earliest documents showing some company experts have long suspected the toxins… pose risks not just to workers, but their unborn children too.”[11] Among the toxins, some are heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, lead, and chromium), and some are solvents (e.g., toluene, xylene, petroleum distillates, etc.).[12] Some of these chemicals that the lawsuits identify are still used and present at the Boeing plant where the plaintiffs worked.[13]

            Lead plaintiff’s attorney Michael Connett of Waters Kraus & Paul argues that workers are still at risk because Boeing has failed to “communicate the hazards and adequately enforce safety rules.”[14] Over 40 years ago, Dr. Dunphy insisted the company would face serious consequences due to their “impotent occupational health program” and sorely needed an “effective Industrial Hygiene program.”[15]

            The company maintained that there is “mixed scientific evidence” to support the connection between the chemicals and the birth defects, and that it is entirely dependent upon the “chemical, the manner of exposure and the dose.”[16] According to representatives, the company maintains a list of “chemicals of concern” for “reproductive toxicity,” which the depositions show, and illustrate the company has been keeping track of this risk for many years.[17] Although the company “instituted monitoring programs to ensure worker exposure levels were below regulatory maximums,” it is unclear whether workers are truly aware of their exposure risk.[18] In 2021, toxicologists at Boeing did an analysis of more than 100 chemical information sheets, and added the line “may be toxic to reproduction” in their database entry.[19] Connett said that employees are used to taking some risks, but that they are “consistently not prepared to also risk their children.”[20]

             Boeing’s attorneys assert that Washington courts “have recognized a preconception of duty of care only in healthcare cases.”[21] However, Washington state Judge Dixon questioned Boeing’s attorneys on why it would not also apply in the employment setting and insisted that an alleged birth defect risk is not “distinguishable from any other kind of physical, on-the-job risk that employers are obligated to warn their workers about.”[22] As the Judge opined, Boeing could have just “post[ed] a sign or something” about the warnings and health dangers of the chemicals.[23]

            At the close of the hearing, the Judge told the parties he would be conducting a more thorough review of the case law before issuing any decisions on Boeing’s motion to dismiss.[24]

---

[1] Rachel Riley, Judge Wary of Boeing’s Bid to Duck Birth Defect Suit, LAW360(Feb. 16, 2024, 7:50 PM), https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/law360-us/article/1803971.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Rachel Riley, Secret Files Reveal Boeing Doctor Warned of Toxic Risks, Birth Defects, THE COLUMBIAN (Nov. 28, 2022, 6:01 AM), https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/nov/28/secret-files-reveal-boeing-doctor-warned-of-toxic-risks-birth-defects/.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Riley, supra note 5.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Riley, supra note 5.

[17] Id.  

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Jake Goldstein-Street, At Boeing’s Everett Plant, New Lawsuits Allege Further Birth Defects, HERALDNET (Sep. 29, 2023 5:08 PM), https://www.heraldnet.com/news/at-boeings-everett-plant-new-lawsuits-allege-further-birth-defects/.

[21] Riley, supra note 1.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

HealthCare Workers Denied Overtime Compensation in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

By Jessica Kohn

Friday, February 2, 2024, ex-direct care worker Jennifer Sharp alleged that Community Health Systems Inc. had been automatically deducting a half hour of wages per day regardless of whether their workers actually found the time to escape their worktime duties and take a break.[1] This proposed class action and collective action filed in Tennessee federal court is demanding all unpaid overtime wages dating back to November 2018 in additional to liquidated damages.[2] Additionally, on behalf of a similarly defined class dating back to November 2015, Sharp is demanding all withheld straight time wages.[3] Sharp claimed that in her two and a half years working at LaFollette Medical Center, she and her colleagues were scheduled to work between thirty-six and forty hours a week, which included a thirty minute unpaid meal break each day.[4]

However, healthcare workers often end up not taking this break because they are unable to slip away from their patients.[5] This is because healthcare workers are required to respond to patients whenever they are needed, regardless if they are on their break.[6] This makes it rare for a healthcare worker to have thirty uninterrupted minutes which leads to them working two and half hours of uncompensated overtime each week.[7]

Sharp says that “because her colleagues routinely worked more than 40 hours per week, untaken break time should have been compensated at the time-and-a-half guaranteed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.”[8] Under the Fair Labor Standards Act,

“Covered nonexempt employees must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per workweek (any fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours – seven consecutive 24-hour periods) at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. There is no limit on the number of hours employees 16 years or older may work in any workweek. The FLSA does not require overtime pay for work on weekends, holidays, or regular days of rest, unless overtime is worked on such days.”[9]

Sharp claims that because the defendants are sophisticated parties and employers, that they knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard carried out this illegal pattern of failing to pay their employees and other similarly situated employees the proper amount of overtime compensation.[10] Sharp believes that the defendant’s sophistication made them aware that they were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[11] According to Sharp, “the hospital knew or should have known that its automatic deduction policy, paired with its refusal to fully relieve workers of their duties would lead to overtime underreporting.”[12] Because of this, Sharp is claiming that the policy in place is a willful flouting of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Tennessee state wage protections that is an attempt to exploit employees.[13]

---

[1] See Caleb Drickey, Health Workers Say They Are Owed Meal Break Pay, l. 360 (Feb. 5, 2024), https://www.law360.com/employment/articles/1794278/health-workers-say-they-are-owed-meal-break-pay.

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See id.

[8] Id.

[9] 29 U.S.C. § 207 (1949).

[10] See Drickey, supra note 1.

[11] See id.

[12] Id.

[13] See id.

Leveling the Playing Field: Recent NLRB Decision Sparks Election that could Unionize NCAA College Athletes

By: Kristen Julich

Back in September 2023, the entirety of the Dartmouth Men’s Basketball team signed a petition asking to join Local 560 of the Service Employees International Union.[1]  Local 560 of the Service Employees International Union represents other employees at Dartmouth.[2]  Membership in this union would give the athletes the opportunity to negotiate salary, as well as working conditions such as travel and practice times.[3]  National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter “NLRB”) official, Laura Sacks stated in a regional decision, that the basketball players were employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter “The Act”).[4]  She reasoned that since Dartmouth had the authority to control the work done by the team, and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation, they are to be considered employees under The Act.[5] 

Dartmouth officials will seek to change this decision since they view the athletes as “students first” and “athletes second”.[6]  An email from college spokesperson Diana Lawrence, stated that the College does not believe the student athletes are college employees, so unionization is inappropriate.[7]  The College urges that unlike other institutions where athletics generate millions in revenue, Dartmouth is an outlier, most of their revenue goes to the costs the College of their participation in the Ivy League.[8]  The College emphasized that they do not compensate their athletes, nor do they provide athletic scholarships; “all scholarships are based on financial need.”[9]  The NLRB decision noted that the player handbook largely resembled an employee handbook, and when compared to the rest of the student body, the athletes are supervised at a much higher level.[10]

This is not the first time the NLRB has been pressured to give student athletes more rights in the employment context.[11]  Back in 2014, the Northwestern football team held a union election where ballots were destroyed after the NLRB, who only governs private employers, found that allowing the players at the only private school in the Big Ten to unionize would skew the labor market in that conference.[12]  The question of whether the athletes were employees was never addressed; however, in Dartmouth’s case, all of the Ivy League schools are private and do not grant athletic scholarships.[13]  As a result of this stark difference from the circumstances in the Northwestern case, it is likely that the ruling in Dartmouth’s case will be upheld, since there is no risk of skew in the labor market of the Ivy League.[14]

 Many of these complaints rely on House v. The NCAA where Kavanaugh’s concurrence urges that nowhere else in America can businesses get away with not paying their workers the fair market rate, on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers the fair market rate.[15]  This case is seen as the largest threat to a “longstanding amateur athlete model that isn’t changing quickly to satisfy its opponents.”[16]  The goal here is to ask the court to strike down all prohibitions on unionization and pay the students.[17]  Another issue that has been brought to the court’s attention is the fact that the NCAA is making millions off the name, image, and likeness, especially during events like “March Madness.”[18]

Given the recent decision in the Dartmouth case, it is likely that an election like that of the 2014 Northwestern case is on the horizon.[19]  The concern of the NLRB’s jurisdiction over public employers, is not one that the athletes in Dartmouth’s case, should be concerned about given the circumstances.[20]  The question for the College now becomes, if the Men’s Basketball team becomes employees, then what other athletes are employees, and does this make the music students, and other similarly situated students’ employees as well?[21]  The College fears that the door will be opened too far.[22]

---

[1]See Jimmy Golen, US labor official says Dartmouth basketball players are school employees, sets stage for union vote, 10 News (Feb. 6, 2023, 11:40 AM), https://www.wsls.com/news/2024/02/05/nlrb-regional-official-decides-dartmouth-mens-basketball-players-are-employees-of-the-school/.

[2] See Laborers’ Union Local 560, https://laborerslocal560.org/ (last visited Feb. 9, 2024).

[3] See Golen, supra note 1.

[4] See Josh Simm, Dartmouth basketball players could become first unionized college athletes, Sportsmedia (Feb. 7, 2024), https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/dartmouth-college-basketball-team-union-nrlb-ruling-employement-status/?zephr_sso_ott=vVgGZF#:~:text=%27Because%20Dartmouth%20has%20the%20right,%2C%27%20wrote%20Laura%20Sacks%2C%20NLRB.

[5] See Golen, supra note 1.

[6] Golen, supra note 1.

[7]See Emilia Williams, Men’s basketball pushes closer toward unionization, reflecting trends at Dartmouth, national discussions, The Dartmouth (Feb. 9, 2024), https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/02/mens-basketball-pushes-closer-toward-unionization-reflecting-trends-at-dartmouth-national-discussions.

[8] See, id.

[9] Id.

[10]See Simm, supra note 4.

[11] See Ralph Russo, Northwestern changes team rules after complaint to NLRB, APNEWS (Oct. 11, 2016, 11:53 PM), https://apnews.com/article/3d0b541ce6ba44b380fb762e2ecd2641 (noting a complaint made regarding the Northwestern football team’s athlete handbook).

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] See id.

[15] See Ralph Russo, Billions in TV revenue, athletes as employees on the line as college sports faces more legal threats, APNEWS (Oct. 16, 2023, 10:14 PM), https://apnews.com/article/college-athletes-nil-eb702d33a87bca98084ea492eccdf84c.

[16]  Id.

[17] See, id.

[18] See, id.

[19] See Golen, supra note 1.

[20] See Russo, supra note 11.

[21] See Golen, supra note 1.

[22] See Golen, supra note 1.

EEOC Fighting to Take Down Tesla

By: Stephanie Bodizs

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) strikes again. They have filed a law suit against Tesla, alleging that Elon Musk’s electric car company violated federal law by permitting pervasive and continuous harassment of Black employees.[1] The complaint contends that individuals who are not of Black descent were reportedly heard shouting racial slurs in high traffic area.[2] The lawsuit, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.[3] Since May 2015, Tesla has been accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4]

The EEOC, established through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is a federal agency dedicated to safeguarding civil rights in the workplace.[5] Most employers with a workforce of at least fifteen employees are subject to the laws enforced by the EEOC.[6] These regulations play a crucial role in clarifying essential terms within a statute, outline procedures for upholding employee rights and bridging the gaps left by Congress.[7] The initial step in initiating a discrimination claim involves filing a complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC may choose to litigate the claim on the employer’s behalf, or decide the claim is without jurisdiction and drop the claim.[8]

Despite all the efforts by legislation to combat employment discrimination, racial discrimination in the workplace still remains a prevalent issue. Specifically, the EEOC is asserting that Tesla is in violation of racial harassment and retaliation of Title VII.[9] “The allegations in this case are disturbing. No worker should have to endure racial harassment and retaliation to earn a living six decades after the enactment of Title VII.”[10] Workers at the Tesla location in California reported being subjected to offensive language, including variations of the N-word, “boy’” and “monkey.”[11] Furthermore, employees reported encountering graffiti in bathroom stalls or elevators containing derogatory terms.[12] It is unexpected for a prominent company to be embroiled in such legal challenges, but it highlights that even well-known entities face discrimination issues. Despite having knowledge of the harassment, Tesla neglected to take corrective action and failed to adopt policies to ensure that the harassment did not persist.[13] Tesla also did not respond immediately when asked to comment on the situation.[14]

This marks the first instance of the EEOC suing Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla. However, it is anticipated to be a challenging legal battle given Musk’s status as one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Elon Musk’s other companies have engaged in various litigations, and he has demonstrated a willingness to allocate significant financial resources to pursue the verdict he believes his company deserves.[15] Tesla has faced previous legal action from a state civil rights agency in California concerning similar allegations, ordering Tesla to pay a previous employee over three million dollars in damages.[16] This previous incident occurred in 2015, and given the passage of several years, it will interesting to observe how the current legal proceedings unfold for Tesla in response to these allegations.

The agency is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, back pay for the affected workers, and injunctive relief to reform Tesla’s employment practices and prevent future instances of discrimination.[17]

---

[1] See Lora Kolodny, EEOC Sues Tesla, Alleging Widespread Racial Harassment of Black Worker, CNBC (Sept. 28, 2023, 4:46), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/28/eeoc-sues-tesla-alleging-widespread-racist-harassment-of-black-workers.html.

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] Brittany Gaddy & Deena Zaru, EEOC Files Federal Lawsuit Against Tesla, Alleging Discrimination, Retaliation Against Black Employees, ABC News (Sept. 28, 2023, 7:52), https://abcnews.go.com/US/eeoc-files-federal-lawsuit-tesla-alleging-discrimination-retaliation/story?id=103578753.

[5] See id.

[6] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, https://www.eeoc.gov/overview#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Equal%20Employment%20Opportunity,%2C%20and%20sexual%20orientation)%2C%20national, (last visited Jan. 27, 2024).

[7] Lisa Guerin, What is the EEOC, NOLO, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-the-eeoc.html (last visited Jan. 27, 2024).

[8] See id.

[9] See Press Release, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation#:~:text=The%20EEOC%20investigated%20Tesla%20after,against%20employees%20for%20opposing%20harassment.

[10] See id.

[11] See id.

[12] See id.

[13] Jessica Guynn, ‘Kill Black People’: Elon Musk’s Tesla Sued for Racial Abuse at Electric Vehicle Plant, USA Today (Sept. 28, 2023, 3:55), https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/28/eeoc-sues-tesla-race-discrimination/70994564007/.

[14] See id.

[15] Riddhi Setty, Tesla Strategy in EEOC Suit Boosted by State-Federal Turf Fights, Bloomberg Law (Oct. 3, 2023), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/daily-labor-report/XD2FA060000000?bna_news_filter=daily-labor-report#jcite.

[16] See supra note 3.

[17] See supra note 12.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS STRIKE HIGHLIGHTS THE BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FROM A UNION PERSPECTIVE

By: Sydney Albert

On the first day of the spring semester, Monday, January 22, 2024, months of attempted negotiations between the California State University system (CSU) and the California Faculty Association (CFA) reached its breaking point.^[1]  Just two weeks after CSU stopped contract negotiations, faculty members within the twenty three CSU system institutions went on strike in protest over unmet wage demands and insufficient working conditions.^[2]  This not only included instructional faculty members, but also coaches, librarians, and counselors.^[3] CFA members went on strike in an effort to gain a raise in salary for lower-paid faculty members, a general salary increase for all faculty, parental leave reflective of their work roles, and adequate staffing of mental health counselors.^[4]

            CSU was offering a 15% pay increase over the course of three years and two additional weeks of parental leave, raising the time off for parental leave across all positions from six to eight weeks.^[5]  However, CFA wanted a 12% pay increase upfront as well as more adequate measures regarding their concerns as they relate to working conditions.^[6] “Faculty, students, and staff are resourceful, intelligent, driven people. If we had access to what we needed, more students would be thriving. CSU management needs to invest in the direct providers – the teachers, counselors, coaches, librarians,” said CFA member and Cal Poly Pomona Counselor Maria Gisela Sanchez Cobo.^[7]  Sanchez Cabo further added that these demands are coming at a time where CSU raised tuition at their campuses state-wide, yet CSU is telling their faculty there is no money for them.^[8]

CFA had planned for the strike to last a full week.^[9] However, within just twenty-four hours of the strike commencing, CFA and CSU were able to reach a tentative agreement.^[10] Some highlights from the agreement reached between CSU management and CFA members include a retroactive 5% general salary increase for faculty members for the current academic year, a 5% generally salary increase for the upcoming academic year, a range of raises in salary for the lower-paid faculty members based on the position the hold, increasing parental leave from six to ten weeks, and providing support for lecture engagement in service work.^[11]

This is not the first time CFA has gone on strike.[12] In November, 2022, 48,000 employees at CSU institutions participated in a walk out in protest of unfair wages in light of the cost of living in California.[13] In contrast to the most recent strike, the November strike lasted six weeks.[14] CFA credits the quick turn-around this time around to CFA taking a historic level of collective action, showing CSU they were to be taken seriously, something CFA believes was not the case prior to the strike.^[15] While both CSU and CFA seem content with the agreement, there has yet to be ratification.^[16] CFA has set for voting on this matter to take place February 12 through 18.^[17]

The CFA strike comes at a time where the nation has had a front row seat in witnessing the power that strikes and collective bargaining hold within the realm of employment.^[18] As demonstrated by SAG-AFTRA and the Writer’s Guild, the United Auto Workers, and nurses nationwide, unionized workers are using their voices and standing up for fair contracts.^[19] In 2023, from January to October, we had 312 strikes in the United States, comprising of around 453,000 workers.^[20] This is nearly double the amount of strikes seen in 2021 with over six times the amount of workers participating.^[21] Experts and commentators have attributed this uptick to a variety of factors.^[22] The importance of the essential worker and employees in service fields became abundantly clear during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[23] The pandemic casted a light on the sacrifices employees make to serve the public.^[24] We are also living through a time with one of the highest approval ratings for labor unions since 1965 with 71% of Americans supporting labor unions.^[25] The newfound importance of employees in service fields coupled with such national support has provided employees with considerable leverage when it comes to negotiations and making the decision to strike.^[26] 

While the deal reached between CSU and CFA is still tentative, this much has become clear: strikes are a vital tool for employees in collective bargaining and are not going anywhere anytime soon.^[27]

---

^[1] See Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, Faculty at Cal State, largest U.S. public university system, begin strike, Wash. Post (Jan. 22, 2024, 12:40 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/01/22/cal-state-faculty-strike/.

^[2]See California State University faculty launch weeklong strike across 23 campuses, CBS News (Jan. 22, 2024, 11:44 AM), https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-state-university-faculty-launch-weeklong-strike-across-23-campuses/.

^[3]See Samantha Delouya, Thousands of faculty walk off the job at largest university system in US, CNN (Jan. 22, 2024, 3:44 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/22/business/csu-faculty-5-day-strike/index.html#:~:text=In%20November%202022%2C%2048%2C000%20academic,transportation%20subsidies%20and%20other%20benefits.

^[4] See CFA Members’ Historic Systemwide Strike Begins Monday, Cal. Fac. Ass’n. (Jan. 18, 2024), https://www.calfac.org/cfa-members-historic-systemwide-strike-begins-monday/.

^[5]  See CSU January 22 Statement on California Faculty Association Strike, Cal. State Univ. (Jan. 22, 2024), https://www.calstate.edu/csu-system/news/Pages/CSU-January-22-Statement-on-CFA-Strike.aspx.

^[6] See CFA Members’ Historic Systemwide Strike Begins Monday, supra note 5.

^[7] Id.

^[8] See id.

^[9] See California State University faculty launch weeklong strike across 23 campuses, supra note 2.

^[10] See Max Zahn and Jolie Lash, California State University workers end strike after reaching tentative agreement, abc News (Jan. 23, 2024, 1:19 AM), https://abcnews.go.com/US/30000-california-state-university-workers-set-strike/story?id=106561392.

^[11]See Tentative Agreement Reached Ending CFA Members’ Historic Systemwide Strike, Cal. Fac. Ass’n. (Jan. 22, 2024), https://www.calfac.org/tentative-agreement-reached-ending-cfa-members-historic-systemwide-strike/.

[12] See Delouya, supra note 3.

[13] See id.

[14] See id.

^[15] See Tentative Agreement Reached Ending CFA Members’ Historic Systemwide Strike, supra note 11.

^[16] See Tentative Agreement Updates, Cal. Fac. Ass’n. (last visited Feb. 2, 2024), https://www.calfac.org/tentative-agreement/.

^[17] See id.

^[18] See Nathaniel Meyersohn, Strikes make a comeback in America, CNN (Sept. 16, 2023, 8:17 AM), https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/16/business/strike-uaw-writers-actors-america/index.html.

^[19] See Jessica Dicker, Why so many workers are striking in 2023: ‘Strikes can often be contagious,’ says expert, CNBC (Oct. 9, 2023, 8:00 AM), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/09/from-uaw-to-wga-heres-why-so-many-workers-are-on-strike-this-year.html.

^[20]See id.

^[21]See id.

^[22]  See Meyersohn, supra note 18.

^[23]  See id.

^[24] See id.

^[25] See Justin McCarthy, U.S. Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 1965, Gallup (Aug. 20, 2022), https://news.gallup.com/poll/398303/approval-labor-unions-highest-point-1965.aspx.

^[26]  See Meyersohn, supra note 18.

^[27] See Dicker, supra note 19.

Thanks for the Heads Up: How the WARN Act Protects Employees in a Layoff-Happy Labor Market

By: Jack Horn

             The U.S. labor market has experienced seismic shifts since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.  While the national unemployment rate has stabilized after climbing to 14.2% in April 2020,[1] layoffs have surged exponentially.[2]  When looking for root causes for this alarming increase, some may point to macroeconomic factors such as the Federal Reserve’s hesitance to cut interest rates or purse-tightening inflationary pressures.[3]  For their part, large employers such as Amazon and Target attempted to quell hiring concerns by announcing a projected increase of approximately 350,000 seasonal jobs.[4]  Nevertheless, these promises are cold comfort to those employees that have already been laid off without any recourse.

            The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (hereinafter “WARN Act”) is a federal labor law that was enacted on August 4, 1988.[5]  It requires businesses with 100 or more employees to provide said employees with notice 60 days ahead of a mass layoff.[6]  Part-time employees who work less than 20 hours per week or those that have worked less than 6 out of the prior 12 months are not covered by the WARN Act.[7]  Additionally, a sale of the company, plant closing, or layoff of 500 or more employees all qualify as events that trigger the protections of the Act.[8]  Penalties for a violation of the WARN Act include back pay and payment of any medical expenses accrued during the period of unemployment which were within the coverage of the lost benefit plan.[9]

            In the years since its implementation, several states have built upon the protections of the WARN Act by passing similar labor laws.[10]  For example, New York’s WARN Act lengthens the required period of advance notice from 60 to 90 days.[11]  The law also decreases the number of employees a business must have in order to be covered by the WARN Act from 100 to 50.[12]  On the other hand, Iowa has employed a balancing approach: while it goes even further by reducing the requisite employee number to 25, it also reduces the mandatory number of days’ notice from 60 to 30.[13]  Lastly, other states such as Maryland and Michigan do not make advance notice of mass layoff compulsory at all; rather, they encourage companies to voluntarily apply the provisions of the federal WARN Act.[14]

            One example of a major employer that may have potentially run afoul of the federal WARN Act is X (formerly known as Twitter).[15]  After the tumultuous restructuring of the company upon its purchase by Elon Musk, former employees alleged in a California District Court suit that Musk failed to provide some workers with the required notice before laying them off.[16]  Additional claims alleged that X engaged in sex and age discrimination throughout the process of its terminations.[17]

            However valid the financial concerns of employers might be, it is clear that the intent behind the WARN Act is to ensure employees have the proper amount of time to make future professional arrangements.[18]  In an increasingly volatile market for both management and labor, this regulation provides welcome structure and stability.

---

[1] See FRED Econ. Data, St. Louis Fed, Unemployment Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over (Feb. 2, 2024), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000024.

[2] See Derek Saul, Layoffs Are Up Almost 200% So Far In 2023—These Industries Hit Hardest, Forbes (Oct. 5, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2023/10/05/layoffs-are-up-almost-200-so-far-in-2023-these-industries-hit-hardest/?sh=2311d2061953.

[3] See id.

[4]  See Ty Roush, Amazon and Target Hiring Combined 350,000 Employees for the Holidays, Forbes (Sept. 19, 2023, 1:14 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/09/19/amazon-and-target-hiring-combined-350000-employees-for-the-holidays/?sh=3b76998b3fad.

[5] See Warn Act Basics, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, https://klehr.com/services/litigation/labor-employment/warn-act/warn-act-basics/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2024).

[6] See id.

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See Sophia Serrao, State and Federal Laws Protect Workers who are Laid Off, McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP (Jan. 19, 2023), https://www.mselaborlaw.com/news/state-and-federal-laws-protect-workers-who-are-laid.

[11] See Jamie Haar and Caitlin L. O’Fallon, New York State Department of Labor Issues Final New York State WARN Act Updated Regulations, Ogletree Deakins (Jun. 30, 2023), https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/new-york-state-department-of-labor-issues-final-new-york-state-warn-act-updated-regulations/.

[12] See id.

[13] See State WARN Acts, Nat’l Ass’n Of State Chambers, https://www.statechambers.org/state-warn-acts (last visited Feb. 5, 2024).

[14] See id.

[15] See Jennifer Bennett and Annelise Gilbert, Twitter Hit With Another Round of Lawsuits for 2022 Mass Layoffs, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 13, 2023, 3:24 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/musks-twitter-hit-with-new-age-bias-mass-layoff-notice-suits.

[16] See id.

[17] See id.

[18] See Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, supra note 5.