In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The decision is in line with
Most of our readers have transnational business operations. If they have employees in the United States, they should review carefully today’s decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court clarified—and raised—the bar that employers must meet in order to show that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” under Title
This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s Trading Secrets blog.
The UK government has announced that it will bring in legislation to restrict the post-employment non-compete restraints to three months. This is a significant proposal as currently non-compete restrictions in the UK are generally capable of being enforced for a period up to 12
Seyfarth Shaw Hong Kong Office
Suite 3701 & 3708-3710, 37/F
Edinburgh Tower, The Landmark
15 Queen’s Road Central
Central, Hong Kong
Wednesday, May 17, 2023
9:00am to 10:00am, with registration open and breakfast served from 8:30am
Language: English
Who should attend: HR Directors, Employment Counsel, General Counsel and business owners with responsibility for workforces in
Seyfarth’s Commercial Litigation practice group is pleased to provide the third annual installment the Commercial Litigation Outlook, where our nationally-recognized team provides insights about litigation issues and trends to expect in 2023.
The continuing global tumult and increasing chances for a recession will weigh heavily on the litigation outlook for 2023. We expect an uneven
The Supreme Court on May 23, 2022, in its decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., rejected the “arbitration specific waiver rule demanding a showing of prejudice” to the party opposing the petition to enforce the arbitration agreement. That rule had been followed for decades by nine Circuits.[1] Post Morgan, the analysis reverts to the standard contract waiver analysis “focus[ing] on the actions of the person who held the right; … [rather than] the effects of those actions on the opposing party.”[2] Although the case is an employment matter, the new rule applies whenever a party seeks to stay litigation and send the matter to arbitration under Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act in essentially all commercial litigation contexts.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rejects Prejudice Element of Waiver Analysis When Enforcing Agreements to Arbitrate