We begin Season 2 of From Lawyer to Employer with a discussion about the recent Stericycle Decision from the National Labor Relations Board. Listen as guest speaker, Sarah Niemiroski chats with host, Daniel Schwartz about the the far-reaching impacts this decision has for employers when creating workplace policies. What’s different about Stericycle as opposed to Boeing? What type

Today the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the new dollar limits that apply for retirement plans in 2024. These annual limits generally continue to increase (in some cases rather substantially compared to the limits in effect just ten years ago), based on the cost-of-living calculation methodology that is set forth in the Internal Revenue Code. 

Employers often struggle with what to do when employees fail to report their time accurately. A recent decision by the Second Circuit illustrates how costly it can be for employers who don’t address the issue properly.  

In Perry et al. v. City of New York, the Second Circuit upheld a significant jury verdict in

On August 25, 2023, the IRS delayed the requirement, originally slated to be effective in 2024, that catch-up contributions for higher earners be made on a Roth basis.  Now, that provision will be effective in 2026.  This applies to 401(k), 403(b) and governmental 457(b) plans.

SECURE 2.0 requires that individuals whose prior year wages exceed $145,000 and

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) setting forth technical requirements for state and local government websites and apps to make them more accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Guidance Issued in 2022

In our March 2022

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a 3-2 decision, Stericycle, Inc., that adopted a new legal standard for evaluating employers’ workplace policies and rules. Under the new standard, an employer’s workplace policy may violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) if its policies have a “reasonable

About a month ago, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the U.S. Supreme Court all but sounded the death knell for considering race or ethnicity as such in admissions to public educational institutions or those receiving federal funds. 

Since then, many scholars, pundits, and attorneys have debated the extent to which the Court’s

In Hartford Police Department v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (HPD v. CHRO), the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the agency’s post‑hearing finding that a police department had unlawfully terminated a probationary officer due to discriminatory animus displayed by, and imputed from, a supervisor other than the final decisionmaker.

In doing so, the


This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously toppled decades-old precedent governing an employer’s treatment of religious accommodation requests. While the decision in Groff v. DeJoy has been overshadowed by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which threw out Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action programs, Groff has broad-reaching impacts