Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: remember that we now post every other day.
The posts on Sunday 1/11/2026, here and here, noted Target workers accept $4.6M to settle wage claims for off the clock walking. The claims could be state-law dependent.
In late October a class of current and former Target warehouse workers at distribution centers (in New Jersey) agreed to accept $4.6 million to settle state law claims that they weren’t paid for walking long distances to and from their work stations to undergo mandatory pre- and post-shift security screenings.
Per the complaint in the case (linked in the post), Sadler, the named plaintiff, was an hourly nonexempt warehouse employee at one of three Target distribution centers that together span more than 2 million square feet. Sadler alleged that before warehouse workers can clock in, they have to show their ID at the facility entrance, undergo mandatory pre-shift screenings, and walk long distances to their work location. And then at the end of their shift, the workers do that in reverse.
The lawsuit alleged that Target violated state wage and hour law by not counting the pre- and post-shift walking time as “hours worked” which, in turn, had the ripple effects noted in the post. Target denied the allegations, particularly that the walking time was compensable. The parties agreed to the settlement which then required court approval.
That settlement is not the end of the road for Target as it is fighting similar claims in New York in a class-action case filed last August. The plaintiffs there alleged that hourly workers at specified warehouses cannot clock in until after they enter the facility, swipe their employee badges for security purposes, and walk up to half a mile to their assigned departments (and then do the reverse at the end of their shift).
In the NY case, one plaintiff alleged that when she worked as a packer, it took her 8-10 minutes to walk from the entrance to her work area (and so another 8-10 minutes back at the end of her shift). Other plaintiffs alleged similar things, and the legal claims in the suit are similar to the NJ case – see the post.
Both cases (NJ and NY) turn on a commonly contested issue: When do hourly employees have to be compensated for pre- and post-shift activities? In a seminal ruling in 2014 (linked in the post), the US Supreme Court laid out the standard for lawsuits brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That holding is also in the post.
However, US Department of Labor guidance (yep, inked in the post) points out that some states may provide more protection than does the FLSA (especially when taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s decision). State laws may require a higher minimum wage and in that case employers must comply with both the FLSA and state law.
Speaking of state law as distinguished from the FLSA, a 2022 settlement (linked in the post) serves as a reminder of the different outcomes. In that case, California law was at issue; a court approved a $30.4 million settlement agreement between Apple and a class of workers required to undergo off-the-clock bag searches. The court had made a legal ruling that probably led to the settlement – see the post.
In the NY case this past October, Target argued in a motion to dismiss (for which a link is in the post) that the plaintiffs don’t have a claim because state law and regulations incorporate the FLSA (the effect of which is argued in their motion and described in the post). In contrast, the NJ lawsuit asserted that Target warehouse workers are entitled to be compensated for the walking time under state law based on the definition there (which is in the post).
TAKEAWAY: Employers must know how to pay their workers; it may (and probably does) depend on both the FLSA and state law.
The posts on Tuesday 1/13/2026, here and here, told us homeowner forced to give up chickens after HOA vote fails. What we don’t know is what was the required vote (percentage/number), what the Bylaws provide, and why do other owners have chickens. All good and relevant questions. But let’s look at what we do know.
A resident of the Hill Farms community is giving up her pet chickens after her homeowner’s association threatened to fine her. Janice Weirch is feeding her chickens for the very last time behind her home. How long she’s lived in the neighborhood and when she got the chickens is in the post.
Weirch said she built a $2,500 chicken coop and got chickens and then was asked to get rid of them. Why she was surprised is in the post. Weirch says the homeowner’s association (HOA) threatened fines and issued a cease-and-desist letter. She admitted that the CC&Rs didn’t allow chickens (but then there was that other thing – see the post).
So Weirch actually acted responsibly – she tried to change the rules by asking the HOA board to put the issue to a vote. The board told her she would need to collect signatures for a petition. After reviewing the petition and ballots, the board decided the rules would remain the same. Some of what happened procedurally with the vote is in the post.
But Weirch questioned how the final vote was calculated whether on those who voted once you meet quorum, or based on all homeowners? How Weirch answered the question, and her follow-up comment, are in the post.
The HOA says chickens have never been allowed but confirms the issue was put to a vote. The HOA also said that while most returned ballots supported allowing chickens, the measure failed because it did not reach the required number of votes. More on the voting is in the post.
So now Weirch says she is giving up her chickens. She is following the rule and vote. But is it a done deal? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Condominium and homeowner associations’ governing documents set forth the requisite vote for amendments. There might also be a law that is applicable. But sometimes it takes a community association lawyer to interpret the documents or law, so get one involved early on in the process
The posts on Thursday 1/15/2026, here and here, noted that public employees must suffer adverse action, not just ‘grumblings’, to show free speech violations. Makes perfect sense. Let’s take a closer look.
A federal appeals court held that government employees must show that they suffered an adverse employment action because of their speech in order to show that their employers engaged in unlawful viewpoint suppression. The plaintiff in the case is a university professor who publicly criticized university administrators for implementing affirmative action policies and a “DEI ideology,” among other actions. He claimed that officials then threatened his job, pay, institute affiliation and research opportunities.
The federal trial court agreed with the university and the 5th Circuit has now affirmed, holding that the plaintiff suffered no actionable adverse employment action because he was neither fired nor demoted because of his speech. But there was contrary action that further bolstered the decision – see the post.
Though the plaintiff detailed several claims of retaliation for his speech, the 5th Circuit held that none of the alleged conduct rose to the level of a First Amendment violation. For instance, the plaintiff claimed that a colleague emailed the university’s compliance office asking for review of one of the plaintiff’s podcast appearances and consideration of whether he violated the school’s ethics and civility standards. Later the plaintiff received an email from his department chair – that is described in the post. The plaintiff also claimed that another employee emailed a university police officer (on the basis quoted in the post), after which the police opened an investigation. But no action was taken against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the various actions he described in his complaint chilled his free speech by state actors and retaliated for protected speech as a citizen and academic. But while his lawsuit was pending, a contrary action that undermined his suit occurred – see the post.
The 5th Circuit found that while the plaintiff had standing to pursue his claims, he did not suffer an adverse result of any employment decisions and therefore could not succeed on those claims. The Circuit Court mentioned “grumblings of the defendants” and how that was to be considered under the law. See the post for more details.
There are other cases involving actual firings over political speech that continue to be a point of contention in academia. One example is where Texas A&M University faced criticism in September when it fired a children’s literature professor after a state legislator shared a video of the professor teaching about gender identity. There is a link in the post for more details on that.
But this issue is not limited to academia. Employee speech emerged as a cultural flashpoint across various segments of the workforce in 2025. After the assassination of political commentator Charlie Kirk, there was a wave of firings (see the link in the post for the basis).
TAKEAWAY: Employers should have in place and enforce policies for off-duty conduct. Make sure an employment lawyer vets the policy for legal compliance.
The posts on Saturday 1/17/2026, here and here, told us widow sues HOA and management company after neighbor allegedly kills spouse. Curious? And how did the HOA and management company get dragged into this?
The widow of a pastor who was killed amid escalating tension with his neighbor (more details on that are linked in the post) is suing the homeowner’s association and the property management company two years after her husband’s death. Joe Junio, age 38, faces charges of open murder with a deadly weapon for the Dec. 29, 2023, killing of 46-year-old Nick Davi (again, more details are linked in the post). The shooting happened in a North Las Vegas community.
Sarah Davi, Nick’s wife, was wounded in the shotting according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed in 2024. Davi’s recent lawsuit was filed against the HOA and FirstService Nevada (the management company).
So what is the backstory? Junio and the Davi family were neighbors and, police say, her behavior apparently changed in the weeks before the shooting after the Davi family reported her to the HOA for violations related to chickens and dogs. On the day of the shooting the Davi family was getting into their car when they saw Junio drive past and look at them. Junio then parked next to them and rolled down her window. One of the Davi children then started recording on her phone. There was interaction and words between Junio and the Davi family – see the post. At one point Nick Davi took a couple of steps toward the car. Junio then allegedly got out of her car and started to shoot toward the family. One of the victims fought over the gun with Junio before she ran away to her apartment.
So why was the recent suit filed against the HOA and management company? Davi alleges that they had notice and failed to act – see the post for more details.
Junio’s trial was scheduled to begin in May. A trial in the wrongful death lawsuit was scheduled for July. A court date for the newly filed lawsuit was not scheduled as of the date of the post. But Junio remained in custody.
TAKEAWAY: Not everything that happens in a common interest community requires involvement or action by the condominium or homeowners association. But some things do – and knowing when there is a legal obligation to take action is something to be discussed with a community association lawyer. At the first hint of something not after an irreversible action.
York, Pennsylvania 17403