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: there is still a bit of instability and fluctuation in federal labor and employment law, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 9/14/2025 told us former T & D Concrete employee claims supervisor called him ‘monkey,’ ‘Nword” in discrimination lawsuit. Ugh.
Alvin Brown, a man who worked at a concrete company, filed suit against his former employer on August 24, alleging that his superiors regularly subjected him to racial harassment and referred to him in derogatory terms during his four years of employment. Let’s get some details.
According to the complaint, Brown worked for T & D as a concrete finisher starting in 2020 and was terminated on April 5, 2024. Brown alleges that during his employment two of his supervisors, identified in the complaint as Tommy Yoder and Brady Barnes, subjected him to a “persistent pattern of harassment because of his race,” including discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.
Brown alleges that his supervisors repeatedly called him the “n-word” in various derogatory phrases — along with other (ugly, just ugly) things noted in the post. Brown also claims he was mocked with comments that it was “a white man’s world and it sucks to be black” and other comments mentioned in the post, along with being ridiculed over his dreadlocks as “ugly” and “nappy.”
The complaint alleges that the harassment extended beyond just regular verbal abuse, citing racially motivated threats that included remarks about killing Brown and more as noted in the post. Brown also claims he was subjected to unequal pay, was dismissed from work regularly without reason, and was denied raises. And what was he told when he inquired about promotion opportunities? See the post.
And there’s more! The lawsuit also accuses the supervisors of creating a hostile work environment marked by constant name-calling, yelling, swearing, and even sexual innuendo directed at Brown’s family. All of that allegedly went beyond just Brown as noted in the post.
Brown alleges that all of the behaviors visited on him made him feel “uncomfortable, embarrassed, humiliated, intimidated, and physically threatened at work.” And then there was the termination …
After Brown was terminated, he filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. What Brown seeks in the suit is noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Train your employees – especially managers and supervisors – as to what they must not say or do. Their actions can put your business at risk.
The post on Monday 9/15/2025 alerted us that noncompete ban collapses as Federal Trade Commission withdraws appeal. Employers are happy!
What? Yes indeed, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has abandoned its effort to defend a nationwide ban on employment noncompete agreements, ending one of the most high-profile regulatory initiatives of the prior administration. Ahe agency recently voted 3-1 to withdraw its appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked the ban. That effectively means that noncompete agreements can and will remain in use across much of the US.
The FTC’s decision (linked in the post) came just before a court-imposed deadline (which was in place from the federal appellate court for the reasons noted in the post).
At least part of the joint statement issued by FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, both Republicans, is in the post. The lone dissent came from Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the only Democrat now on the panel, who recently returned to her post after a court ruling reinstating her after Trump’s earlier removal attempt.
Let’s look at some history. The FTC first finalized its ban on noncompetes in April 2024 under then-Chair Lina Khan. What the rule would have done is detailed in the post. The FTC estimated at that time that roughly 30 million Americans – about one in five workers – were bound by such restrictions.
Proponents of the ban said it was a major step toward boosting worker mobility and earnings is in the post. But the projections were never tested. Ryan LLC, a Dallas-based tax services firm, backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, quickly challenged the ban. A federal judge in Texas sided with them, concluding the FTC had exceeded its authority. That court halted nationwide implementation of the ban before it took effect.
At the same time, opponents of the ban argued that the FTC lacked authority to impose a blanket ban on employment practices. Part of Ferguson’s 2024 dissent is in the post. And yet Ferguson also acknowledged in the recently released joint statement that noncompete clauses can be harmful (see the post).
As chair, Ferguson has signaled a shift toward targeted enforcement of noncompetes – what that means is noted in the post.
And in addition to its vote to discontinue the appeal, the FTC also recently illustrated that targeted approach by ordering the nation’s largest pet cremation company to cease enforcing noncompete agreements with nearly 1,800 employees. And it seeks public comment as noted in the post. All of this means that employers do not have free reign in the noncompete world but still must be wary.
There are critics of the FTC’s reversal – what they argue is in the post. But those in favor of the reversal take the contrary position – also in the post. One argument made by Ryan LLC, the plaintiff in the original lawsuit, is noted in the post, as is a warning from the Chamber of Commerce.
TAKEAWAY: For now at least the FTC is captaining its ship in a different direction; the nationwide ban is set to be vacated and enforcement will be on a case-by-case basis and incremental action, so employers are still somewhat in the crosshairs.
The post on Tuesday 9/16/2025 provided an employment law update: US Dept. of Labor unveils its regulatory agenda.
Employers around the country probably breathed a sigh of relief when that agenda was recently released. The DOL confirmed that it will be undoing several rules from the prior administration that did not favor businesses, including two biggies: the narrower test of independent contractor status and the broader scope of joint employer liability. There are over 150 agenda items, with several labelled high-priority that address independent contractors, joint employers, and whether certain salaried employees are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
On the independent contractor issue, the DOL intends to discard the prior Rule assessing independent contractor (versus employee) status, as a deregulatory action, and without immediate plans for replacement. What that Rule provides is in the post. But since May 2025 the DOL has not enforced that Rule – and even went farther as noted in the post.
On the joint employer issue, the DOL is considering a rule for the purpose noted in the post. And on the exemption issue, the DOL has confirmed it will be re-evaluating the regulations that implement the domestic service worker exemptions, with specific focus as noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: As with many things in the employment law arena, the pendulum has swung back on the criteria for independent contractor status and joint employer liability – employers should confer with their employment lawyers to make sure they know the current law/rules.
The post on Wednesday 9/17/2025 told us HOA seeks to foreclose on 77-year-old owner over pressure washing violations. Don’t get up in arms, read the facts first.
George Watson pointed to the north-facing side of his house, where the off-white wall grew green algae above a small bucket of water and a ladder on the ground three summers ago. Those items may now cost him his home. The 77-year-old resident is fighting foreclosure after his HOA accumulated more than $9,000 in fines and legal fees.
Watson has lived in the Cedarlake Townhome community since it was built in 2001. He now lives on about $20,000 annually from Social Security. During the pandemic, Watson said he developed a phobia of mail, causing him to avoid checking it for months on end and subsequently missing violation warnings from the HOA. When Watson finally checked his mail in late 2022, he found a bill from the HOA’s attorney demanding $6,000 and including warnings and fines for failing to pressure wash his house, dump a bucket of water that could breed mosquitoes, and remove a ladder.
None of what was in the bill should have been a surprise to Watson. He said he knew the side of his house needed to be pressure-washed due to algae growth, so he borrowed a pressure washer and ladder from his neighbor – see the post for what he did with those items.
Watson said he tried to explain and negotiate the costs with the HOA, but it was too late. In July 2024, the HOA filed for foreclosure after previously placing a lien on Watson’s home (under applicable state law as described in the post).
According to documents, the HOA charged Watson $50 per day for four months (October 2022 – January 2023), totaling more than $1,500 monthly with 7% interest, in addition to regular HOA dues of $180 per month (which covers the things listed in the post). And then legal fees got tacked on – see the post.
Instead of just doing what needed to be done, Watson took out a home equity loan to pay for legal representation and he has been fighting the case for more than a year.
Watson said he’s had several disputes with the HOA in the past 20 years, including arguments over lawn care for a larger backyard and the need for more street parking. Watson is the only homeowner in the community that the HOA has taken to court since 2008, according to records. (Is that because all other issues were resolved prior to suit?) The HOA president declined comment, referring questions to the property management company and attorneys. What the management agent said about the matter is in the post (and is factually correct).
What one attorney who represents both HOAs and homeowners (but is not involved in this case) said about the law is also in the post. That attorney also said that issues about enforcement against elderly homeowners living on fixed incomes or who are ill can and do arise. It is up to the HOA (and how much authority it has and any precedent that might be set, all things to discuss with the HOA’s lawyer), but there are other options such as those discussed in the post.
In this case, in February 2025, the HOA’s attorney filed for summary judgment seeking nearly $15,000. As of September 2025, Watson was still waiting for the judge’s ruling.
TAKEAWAY: Condominium and homeowner associations are governed by rules and restrictions that apply to all residents, regardless of age. Enforcement may work a hardship for some, but it is a choice to live in a community association.
In the post on Thursday 9/18/2025, we read that downtown condo sues city, developer over boutique hotel plan.
A condo association followed through on a July threat to sue over plans to build a boutique hotel downtown, arguing that it will diminish the value of the condo property and dump heavy traffic on the already-busy traffic corridor. The association also argues that the 120-foot hotel is almost twice the height zoning laws generally permit for this area.
In a suit filed Aug. 28 in state court, the Saffron Condominium Association is asking a judge to reverse a decision by the city’s Zoning Board of Adjustment to approve a planned hotel known as the Albion. In March the board approved plans for the 72-room hotel that would include all of the things listed in the post.
During the five years of wrangling between the residents of the Saffron and developer Frank Cretella, some changes were made to accommodate the condo owners. See the post for more on that. But during that same time period the hotel project also grew in height — from 108 feet in the original design to 120 feet — to accommodate the hotel’s nine stories (that were eight in the original plan). The post mentions local zoning requirements for building height in that area.
The Saffron argues that Cretella could adequately build either a hotel or an “event space” without requiring a variance from the city. But the suit explains why the owner wants what is proposed – see the post.
The Zoning Board held five public hearings regarding the hotel, during which Saffron residents were supported by nearly all of the downtown community associations and a Councilman. If the developer prevails in court, the Albion would be built on top on property that is an historic bank most recently occupied by Capital One. Cretella bought the property for $5.35 million in 2019.
Before the Saffron lawsuit was filed, the developer had planned to begin construction early next year. The estimated cost of building the Albion is $30 million. Cretella told the media in July (which is linked in the post) that he expects the Saffron lawsuit to be a short-lived appeal. Stay tuned.
TAKEAWAY: Remember that condominium or homeowners’ association sometimes may have to deal with odd situations to protect their owners’ interests – get assistance from a community association lawyer.
The post on Friday 9/19/2025 again alerted US DOL to overturn independent contractor rule; will consider next steps for new rule. This follows our post of Tues. 9/16/2025 but adds more details.
The Department of Labor announced through the administration’s unified agenda that it planned to rescind its own 2024 final rule which provided an analysis for determining independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (“2024 Rule”).
Citing to five separate legal challenges to the 2024 Rule and DOL’s supposed intention (noted in the post), the current DOL aims to retool the independent contractor rule. The announcement is linked in the post and is not surprising given that on May 1, 2025, DOL that it would no longer enforce the 2024 Rule. What is said it would do instead is detailed in the post (with appropriate links)
DOL is considering how it will proceed in this area but has signaled that any new rule would be deregulatory in nature. The timing of a new rule and recission of the 2024 Rule is also discussed in the post. But unless and until a new independent contractor rule is effective, employers should reacquaint themselves with those documents that the DOL now considers controlling. They should also review any potential differences in applicable state law tests for determining independent contractor classification. And employers should also be mindful that the various US federal appellate courts have their own versions of the test which may apply in any litigation.
TAKEAWAY: Lions and tigers and bears (or in this case probable recission and definite non-enforcement of the 2024 Rule and a reach-back to prior enforcement documents and no new Rule in place) should make employers seek out their employment lawyers on these issues.
Finally, in the post yesterday 9/20/2025, we said wait — the EEOC is still knocking? Why an employment lawsuit may not be the end of the story. Employers take heed.
Employers naturally assume that once an employee or applicant files a discrimination lawsuit after receiving a notice of right to sue from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), that agency’s involvement has concluded. Well, recent legal developments have clarified that the EEOC may continue its investigation and seek additional information from the employer, even after the person has instituted suit. Let’s go down that road a bit more.
There is nothing specifying that the EEOC’s role ends once it has issued a notice of right to sue and suit has been filed. IN fact, three federal appellate court (listed in the post) have held that the EEOC retains investigatory authority even after these events. The statutory basis for those holdings is also in the post. But contrast that with the position form another federal appellate court that the EEOC’s investigatory powers are limited once a lawsuit is filed. This split may ultimately require resolution by the US Supreme Court.
Most recently, on August 25, 2025, a decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the EEOC’s authority to continue investigating an employer after issuing a right-to-sue notice and after the employee filed suit. This decision contributes to an ongoing split among federal circuit courts regarding the scope of the EEOC’s investigatory powers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes.
The EEOC’s investigative process is detailed in the post. The key here is he EEOC’s issuance of the right to sue notice. That triggers the ability of the person making the charge to bring suit if they choose. And then the road diverges, depending on in which federal Circuit the matter is pending (as noted above). In those Circuits that allow the EEOC to continue investigating, that means the EEOC can still issue subpoenas and more (as noted in the post) at the same time the suit is moving ahead.
Let’s take a closer look at the appellate decisions. The Second Circuit’s August 2025 ruling joined the sister Circuits noted in the post in holding that the EEOC’s investigatory authority is not extinguished by issuance of a notice of right to sue or the filing of suit. The court’s reasoning as to the basis of continued EEOC enforcement and powers is detailed in the post.
In contrast, the Fifth Circuit, along with a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas in a US Supreme Court denial of certiorari, have argued that Title VII distinguishes between the EEOC’s administrative investigation, its enforcement procedures, and the judicial process, thus ending its investigatory powers after the right to sue notice issues and suit is filed.
So what does all of this mean for employers? Well, it depends. On where in the country the case is unfolding, because the EEOC’s authority to investigate discrimination charges may continue beyond its issuance of a notice of right to sue and the commencement of litigation. Until the Supreme Court provides definitive guidance (which it is almost certain to do in the future given the Circuit split), employers should consider several things:
- Preparing for continued EEOC involvement (and what that will mean relative to the employer);
- Assessing the scope of EEOC requests: Employers need just blindly comply. Rather, after discussing with their employment lawyer, they might want to challenge EEOC subpoenas on one or more of the grounds listed in the post;
- Understanding jurisdictional differences: This is really the first threshold as it may determine the issue from the start; and
The other things listed and described in the post.
TAKEAWAY: with the split in Circuits, employers can no longer just rely on “federal law” when it comes to what happens after the EEOC issues a notice of right to sue and suit has been filed; instead, they must meet with their employment lawyer and map out possible future roads and where they can lead for the employer.