SimplyHR | Employment & Labor BlogĀ 


Blog Editors



By Lauren Daming, Heather Mehta on May 21, 2018 at 2:40 PM EDT

Supreme Court buildingIn a 5-4 decision written by newcomer Justice Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld employment agreements that require employees to individually arbitrate disputes with their employers.

The May 21, 2018, opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis resolves a trio of cases before the Supreme Court in which employees brought suits against their employers alleging state and federal wage and hour violations. In each situation, the employees had signed contracts agreeing to resolve any employment-related disputes in individualized arbitration. Nevertheless, they sought to litigate their claims in class or collective actions. 

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Amy Blaisdell, Heather Mehta on January 18, 2017 at 3:40 PM

Supreme Court buildingThe U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 ended a yearlong legal challenge to the enforceability of a forum selection clause in an ERISA-governed benefit plan, when the court denied the plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari. The case is Clause v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 719 (Jan. 17, 2017).

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Heather Mehta on July 7, 2014 at 6:00 AM

Contraceptives_iStock_000029626228SmallIn Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court struck down the contraceptive mandate as applied to certain for-profit employers.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its regulations require group health plans to cover women’s preventive care without any cost sharing requirements. The Health and Human Services department issued guidelines that included all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods within the definition of preventive services.

In the two cases consolidated in the decision, the plaintiffs were closely held corporations – Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Mardel, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. – and the Christian families that owned them. The plaintiffs objected to four types of contraceptive methods, which they considered abortifacients.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email

This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. If you choose to continue browsing this website, you consent to the use of cookies. Read our Privacy Policy here for details.