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 5/3/2026, here and here, told us Coca-Cola bottler rebuts EEOC claim that women-only work trip harmed male workers. NOTE: this is a follow-up to our Wed. 4/1/2026 posts here and here (which were not April Fool’s jokes).
In its motion to dismiss the suit filed by the EEOC, Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc. said that the federal district court should hold that the lawsuit fails to state a claim. The bottler argues that its Women’s Forum event was an affirmative effort to correct a gender imbalance within its workforce that is permitted under Title VII rather than being prohibited by that statute. The information on which the company based its argument is in the post.
The EEOC claimed in its February lawsuit (linked in the post) that the trip was an effective denial of equal access to opportunity because participants were allegedly excused from their regular duties to participate in the trip but were still paid their normal salary or wages. And that pesky discrimination based on protected characteristic alleged by the EEOC? See the post.
As part of its filing, Coke Northeast alleges that the EEOC does not allege harm, even under the relaxed standard articulated by the US Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (also linked in the post in case you have forgotten its holding). The bottler argued that the fact that participants received benefits such as food, beverages and a one-night hotel stay for a one-time, one-day event and were paid their regular wages did not meet the Muldrow standard. What it said the event really was, and the effect on male employees, is all in the post.
And finally, Coke Northeast argued that it had a legal obligation to correct gender imbalances. Interestingly, the document on which it based that argument was revoked by President Trump in January 2025, but read the post for the relevant timeline.
Coke Northeast also asked that if the court does not dismiss the suit, that it alternatively strike the EEOC’s request for punitive damages.
This suit is but one in the new frontier where the EEOC has prioritized reverse discrimination cases (and it has even solicited white men who feel they are the victim of such action – see our Sunday 12/28/2025 posts here and here).
In a separate but related case, the EEOC sued Nike in February to enforce an administrative subpoena as part of an investigation into alleged anti-White discrimination (see the link in the post for more details). The EEOC also alleges violation of Title VII in that suit.
TAKEAWAY: Employers are cautioned not to discriminate against any employee in any way; the EEOC is searching for reverse discrimination and you don’t want to be caught in that wide net.
The posts on Tuesday 5/5/2026, here and here, explained how appellate court applied business judgment rule and reversed summary judgment in condominium assessment dispute. Let’s look at the back-story so you can find your roadmap.
The appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of condominium owners in a dispute over association fees. While the court did agree that the association had to turn over financial audits, it determined that the rest of the case should be reconsidered because courts should generally not interfere in board decisions without clear wrongdoing.
The case here involved a master condo association (if you are not sure what that means legally, contact this author) that provides shared services like maintenance and cable to several smaller associations. The master board’s budget included about $248,000 for cable costs, although it had settled a dispute with the cable company for $100,000. One of the smaller associations, Fifth Horizons, argued that this was unfair and that they overpaid their share. The trial court ruled in favor of Fifth Horizons, holding that the master board acted outside its authority, and awarded damages to Fifth Horizon. The master board then appealed.
The appeals court looked to the business judgment rule, which means that courts usually defer to decisions made by boards as long as they are made in good faith. The court referred to FL statutes (listed in the post) and noted that the statutory protection under the business judgment rule applies automatically, even if not specifically raised as a defense. The appeals court also made a specific finding regarding the disputed budget and assessments that underpin its holding – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: Would this play out the same in Pennsylvania? Probably, because the business judgment rule is ingrained in statute (and most association’s governing documents). Talk to a community association lawyer about any questions or issues.
The posts on Thursday 5/7/2026, here and here, alerted that DOL has proposed new joint employer rule. Know the (soon to be) law. First, see our Monday 3/16/2026 posts here and here.
The US Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division recently announced a proposed rule (linked in the post) aimed at streamlining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. According to DOL’s press release, the rule would create a single nationwide standard and resolve any existing (significant) differences among the federal circuit courts, all of which will ensure that employees and employers alike know when multiple employers are jointly responsible in a given situation. (The verbatim quote from DOL is in the post.)
Why should you care about this? The joint employer regulations apply when an employee is benefiting from or working for multiple employers and those employers control the worker’s terms of employment. In this economy, that pulls in a lot of people.
DOL last changed its regulations on joint employer status in 2021. At that time the Biden administration rescinded a rule (linked in the post) issued by the first Trump administration. Now we go back to something similar to that prior rule. The post details the 4-part test under the prior Trump administration rule. That test is now to be used under the new rule in determining vertical joint employment. While additional factors may be relevant to that determination, DOL’s notice of the new rule said, “a unanimous finding on the four factors in either direction would establish a ‘substantial likelihood’ regarding whether an individual or entity is a joint employer with another.”
The rule also clarifies when horizontal joint employment exists – see the post for what is and is not to be considered sufficient to support such a determination.
DOL believes that the new rule will simplify things and reduce compliance and litigation costs for employers. And DOL’s gift to itself resulting from the new rule? See the post.
Note that there is an area of joint employment not addressed by the new rule. See the post for more on that.
What has been proposed is not the exact same as the rule under the first Trump administration because a federal court had pushed back against some of it back then. One way DOL attempts to distinguish the proposed rule from the prior rule is discussed in the post. The public may submit comments on the proposed rule through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 22.
The timing of issuance of the proposed rule was interesting. It came out two days after Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned as Secretary of Labor (more on that is in the post) amid allegations of misconduct. What she and Sonderling had said during their confirmation hearings about the Biden-era joint employer rule is also noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers care about this because they need to know what liability they might incur from the actions or inactions of another employer of their employee. And employees care because they need to know to whom they should look for the answers to certain questions, including proper payment of wages.
The posts on Saturday 5/9/2026, here and here, were about shady ex-HOA president pleads guilty in $11M fraud scheme. Thank goodness this type of thing is rare. And no, that number is not a typo.
A shady ex-homeowners association president and her husband – who authorities said ran their Miami HOA like “an organized crime syndicate” – confessed to their part in a massive $11 million fraud that drained money from the community’s funds.
Marglli Gallego, the former leader of the Hammocks Community Association, and her husband, Jose Antonio Gonzalez, admitted in state court to the years-long scheme that prosecutors say ripped off 18,000 people (again, not a typo).
Gallego, age 44, pleaded guilty to racketeering and grand theft and was sentenced to seven years in prison and seven years’ probation. The plea and sentence for Gonzalez, age 49, are in the post. But that’s not all; they also had to forfeit a $1.2 million home outside the Hammock community as part of their plea deals. (Of course, the money they used to purchase the home probably was part of what they took from Hammocks owners ….)
Gallego was described as the ringleader of “one of the largest homeowner association frauds in US history” (not really a record to which one might aspire).
Police launched an investigation in to the scheme in 2022 after residents noticed the HOA funds mysteriously being depleted. Gallego and Gonzalez were not the only ones arrested in connection with the plot. Who else was arrested, their current sentencing status, and the “tools” used by the perpetrators is all detailed in the post (based on court documents).
Prosecutors allege that Gallego and her “fraud army” operated from 2017-2022. Just some of what she did was use HOA credit cards to buy fast food and groceries and hire community security guards – what they were to do is noted in the post (and might surprise you).
Documents linked to the fraud were stashed in a spa in a vacant building in a strip mall about 50 miles from the Hammock community. (Yep, it’s nice when those who commit crimes leave written proof for prosecutors.)
Some residents are not satisfied with Gallego’s sentence even though it is the longest ever handed to a board member. What one resident said is quoted in the post as is a quote from Gonzalez’s attorney. What Gallego’s lawyer said is also noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Thankfully, this type of thing, especially on this scale, is rare. But those who suffer are the owners. If there is insufficient insurance to cover the loss, then the difference in funds will need to be paid in again by owners – because the maintenance and other obligations of the Association don’t stop just because of the stolen funds. It is best to have in place strong internal controls and try to prevent this type of thing – work with a community association lawyer and your Board members.