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 12/14/2025, here and here, alerted us appeals court oks removal of Dems from labor boards (NLRB and MSPB). SCOTUS case discussed at end of the post may resolve this too.
On Dec. 5 an appeals court said that President Donald Trump had the power to fire Democratic members of two federal labor boards, a major victory in the his bid to rein in agencies meant to be independent from the White House. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that federal laws allowing members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board to be removed only for cause violated the U.S. Constitution.
The majority said that the agencies wield substantial executive power, so they should be accountable to the president. Those 2 judges are identified in the post.
The dissenting judge (also identified in the post) said that Congress intended to insulate the boards from politics by making them independent from the White House, as it has done with about 30 other agencies. More of what that judge said also is in the post.
The Court’s decision reversed separate rulings by two judges who had reinstated Cathy Harris to the MSPB and Gwynne Wilcox to the NLRB. In May the US Supreme Court had temporarily paused the lower court rulings (to let the appeals play out).
A bit of history on the boards and their make-up. The NLRB hears private-sector labor disputes and the MSPB decides appeals by federal employees who have been disciplined or fired. Since the MSPB is often the only legal recourse for federal workers, it could have a key role in reviewing Trump’s efforts to purge the federal workforce.
Members of both agencies are appointed by the president. Federal laws only allow the members to be removed for cause including inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. Despite the clear, unambiguous laws, Trump fired Harris and Wilcox without cause in January, the first time a president had removed a member of either agency. See the post for others he has removed since taking office in January (and think about the effect that might have for workers and those served by the agencies).
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Dec. 8 over whether Trump had the power to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission. The decision in that case could set an important precedent on the president’s ability to remove members from a range of federal agencies. The Supreme Court upheld removal protections for FTC members in a 1935 ruling, which Harris and Wilcox claimed also applies to their cases. See our posts of Mon. 4/7/2025, Fri. 4/11/2025, Sun. 4/13/2025, Sun. 4/20/2025, Tues. 4/22/2025, Fri. 4/25/2025, Sun. 10/26/2025, and Mon. 10/27/2025 for more background on the precedent (Harvey’s Executor).
But on Dec. 5 the D.C. Circuit disagreed with Harris & Wilcox, finding that the NLRB and MSPB are structured differently than the FTC and have more powers (thus distinguishing them and effectively saying that Harvey’s Executor did not apply, meaning that the Court’s decision in the FTC case will be irrelevant here).
The post also discusses the effect that removal of Harris and Wilcox had on the work of the NLRB and MSPB and where those boards stand now.
Legal experts are closely watching the issue because of the domino effect it might have for all citizens – see the post for more on that.
TAKEAWAY: US federal agencies likely touch some facet of all of our lives, so whether or not they can independently make decisions and interpret laws is core to their mission. Stay tuned.
The posts on Tuesday 12/16/2025, here and here, noted jury awards $135K to condo president in Facebook libel case. This type of thing (public social media posting) is happening everywhere … Be warned.
A long-running dispute between neighbors in Ocean Ridge finally reached a decision after a state court jury found that a Facebook post accusing a condominium association president of a sexual act constituted libel per se. The jury awarded $135,000 in compensatory damages. Let’s look at this in more detail.
The lawsuit (identified in the post) began on April 13, 2023, when Feinstein filed a complaint alleging that Currie posted defamatory statements on the Town of Ocean Ridge’s public Facebook page. Feinstein, who was president of the Turtle Beach of Ocean Ridge Condominium Association, claimed that the comments harmed his reputation and subjected him to ridicule within the community.
According to the complaint, Feinstein and Currie live next to each other and there had been tension between Currie and the condo association for years. Some of what Feinstein alleged as to Currie’s prior acts is in the post. And because of the association’s action, Feinstein alleged that Currie harbored ill will toward the association and, by extension, its president.
The complaint centers on statements Currie posted in September 2022, which, according to Feinstein, accused him of engaging in “felching” (described in the post). Feinstein argued that the comments were presented as fact, were read by members of the small Ocean Ridge community, and directly damaged his personal and professional reputation. What had occurred prior to the suit having been filed (as required by statute) is detailed in the post
The case moved toward trial in late 2025. Jury instructions describe the central question in the case: whether Currie’s Facebook post constituted a false statement of fact, whether Feinstein was a limited-purpose public figure due to community controversies, and whether the post met the definition of libel per se (which is also defined in the post). Jurors were instructed on various legal concepts that came into play – including those listed in the post – and the evidentiary burden for proving reputational harm. What Currie and Feinstein argued should be the answers to the questions are also noted in the post.
On November 20, 2025, the jury returned a signed verdict in Feinstein’s favor that answered all of the questions – see the post. The jury awarded Feinstein $135,000 in compensatory damages. No nominal damages were added.
TAKEAWAY: social media makes it so easy for a resident to publicize their dislike of action taken by one or more condo or homeowners’ association board members – but there can be serious legal ramifications to such a post. Talk to a community association lawyer if you have this issue in your community.
The posts on Thursday 12/18/2025, here and here, were HOA and condo Q&A: how can our board make decisions during an emergency? Well, it depends …
A question was posed by someone who sits on the board of an HOA. They asked what options exist for making decisions during an emergency, such as a hurricane? The reason we said “it depends” is whether the association’s governing documents or applicable state law have any relevant provision(s).
The post dealt with Florida law (but keep reading for PA law) which provides broad “emergency powers” that allow boards to act when normal procedures are impractical. The statutes let a board continue essential operations during a declared state of emergency, even if it cannot meet in person or follow normal notice requirements. What that authority includes is listed in detail in the post. While the statutorily authorized powers are intentionally broad, it must be remembered that they are temporary and must be used in good faith. How boards should proceed under those powers is also detailed in the post.
If a meeting or election must be delayed, the board should make reasonable efforts to notify owners through available channels such as community email blasts, website postings, or physical notices at entry points.
TAKEAWAY: Pennsylvania condo and homeowner associations faced this issue (emergency operations) during the COVID pandemic; this author assisted some with application of Pennsylvania law that allowed certain actions to continue during that emergency.
The posts on Saturday 12/20/2025, here and here, included 5 questions (and answers) about employers’ obligations to remote workers. This remains important even though many (especially white-collar) are requiring workers to return to office partially or fully. To fulfill legal obligations and mitigate risk, employers must proactively ensure compliance with a complex web of federal, state and local laws. The post includes five considerations for employers with (partially or fully) remote employees.
(1) What are HR leaders’ obligations to track remote work hours? As is the case with all employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s overtime requirements, employers must maintain effective procedures to accurately track and record nonexempt employees’ work hours. Even an employee’s voluntary decision to respond to work emails or perform other work outside of regular business hours must be recorded and compensated. None of this changes when the employee is working remotely, so procedures are even more important.
Employers have many options but need to continuously review their existing procedures for compliance with evolving law. One option is to use software tools or programs (but a big consideration with that is noted in the post). Another option is to set standard hours of operation in a designated time zone to ensure that all employees understand the parameters of companywide working time even while working remotely. Another option (that is easier said than “enforced”) is also in the post.
Any action taken by an employer must take into consideration the laws of the state or country where employees work and be in a written policy that is periodically reviewed for legal compliance – and consistently enforced.
(2) Are there data security and privacy regulations that apply to remote workers? Yes, federal, state and international data security and privacy laws often apply to remote workers. Federal regulations require employers to safeguard the personal information of employees, customers and clients, and certain US states and Europe impose additional requirements.
Employers must ensure that remote work practices comply with data security and privacy requirements imposed by the various laws. Those that decide to monitor remote work to ensure security and compliance with their policies must take action as suggested in the post.
The post also discusses in detail three other considerations: (3) What are reimbursable business-related expenses for remote workers (which takes into account geographic location, the FLSA and state/local law, and the voluntariness of the remote work); (4) What are employers’ tax withholding and reporting obligations for remote workers (which can be more complicated for hybrid workers); and (5) How does workers’ compensation insurance apply in the remote work context (keeping in mind that employers generally are responsible for providing a safe work environment)?
TAKEAWAY: Employers should implement clear and comprehensive remote work policies (including the things listed in the post) that apply to all employees, including those working remotely on a temporary or hybrid basis. An employment lawyer should assist with development and periodic review of the policies.