Businesses are constantly challenged by the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment law, with new legislation and judicial developments occurring almost daily fueling a seemingly never-ending stream of litigation. For companies operating in multiple states, complying with this patchwork of federal, state, and local laws and developments can be daunting. Knowing these issues are a top concern for management and in-house counsel, Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape. MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

turnbull_andrew_blog_150x150.png

turnbull_andrew_common_640x280.jpg

turnbull_andrew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

turnbull_andrew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

turnbull_andrew_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair, Global Employment and Labor Practice

Partner

Andrew Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters. He has successfully defended clients in complex employment litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, including advising on all aspects of OFCCP compliance, creating and implementing affirmative action plans, defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations, conducting mock pay equity audits, drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs, and complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Andrew Turnbull

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues, covering key judicial, litigation, and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits. To learn more about our capabilities, please visit the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor" target="_blank">Employment + Labor</a> practice page and read about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/people?practices=Employment%20%2B%20Labor" target="_blank">Team</a>.

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image.jpg

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislati

Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech Blog

News and thought leadership from lawyers whoa re adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

 MoFo+ Blog

MoFo+

Read our Employment Law Commentary blog for the latest insights in employment and labor law, covering issues from ADA compliance to trade secrets protection.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

ELC Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com" target="_self">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html" target="_self">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from MoFo ELC. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Practical Answers to Employment Law Issues

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Artificial Intelligence

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Department of Labor (DOL)

Discrimination

EEOC

European Union

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Leaves of Absence

Legislation

NLRB

Non-Compete

OFCCP

PAGA

Paid Sick Leave

Pay Equity

Privacy & Data Security

Reductions in force (RIFs)

Trade Secrets

Wage and Hour

Workplace Misconduct

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Andrew R. Turnbull

More

Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump DEI Executive Orders

President Trump Rescinds Affirmative Action for Federal Contractors and Requires Enforcement Plan to End Unlawful DEI at Private Companies

FAR Council Withdraws “Pay Equity and Transparency” Proposed Rule

The “Preventative Duty”: New Law Places Active Duty on Employers in the UK to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Good News for Employers: Texas Court Blocks FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

LinkedIN

On March 14, 2025, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed the nationwide preliminary injunction of President Trump’s Executive Orders 14173 and 14151 (DEI EOs). Read the full <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250317-fourth-circuit-stays-injunction-of-trump-dei-executive-orders" target="_blank">client alert</a>.

Andrew co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters, successfully defending clients in number complex matters before federal and state courts and administrative agencies.

Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump DEI Executive Orders

On January 8, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/08/2025-00118/office-of-federal-procurement-policy-federal-acquisition-regulation-pay-equity-and-transparency-in" target="_blank">withdrew</a> a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/30/2024-01343/office-of-federal-procurement-policy-federal-acquisition-regulation-pay-equity-and-transparency-in" target="_blank">proposed rule</a> that would have banned federal contractors and subcontractors from seeking or considering compensation history when making employment decisions and required contractors to disclose compensation being offered in job postings. As we <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/240131-proposed-rule-seeks-to-mandate-pay-transparency" target="_self">previously reported</a>, the proposed rule would have applied broadly to all solicitations, with mandatory flow-downs to all federal subcontracts performed in the United States, at every tier, including contracts and subcontracts for commercial and commercially available off-the-shelf products and services, of any value. Beyond banning use of salary history information and requiring contractors to include salary, wage, and benefit information in all job postings for positions working on or in connection with a covered contract, the proposed rule would have required covered contractors to provide all applicants applying for roles on covered contracts with a cumbersome mandatory notice of the requirements.  In its notice of withdrawal, the FAR Council said it was withdrawing the proposed rule “[i]n light of the limited time remaining in the current Administration.” The FAR Council and OFPP decided it was better for them to “focus their attention on other priorities, including directives in recent National Defense Authorization Acts” before the new administration is sworn in. It seems safe to bet that the “Pay Equity and Transparency” rule will not reappear, at least not during the next four years. Although federal efforts for pay transparency and salary history may have stalled for now, over 15 jurisdictions already have laws in place prohibiting using salary history to make employment decisions or requiring employers to provide pay information in their job postings. These jurisdictions include California, Connecticut, New York, New York City, Maryland, Washington State, and Washington, D.C. More states will have pay transparency laws going into effect this year, including Illinois (January 1, 2025), Minnesota (January 1, 2025), New Jersey (June 1, 2025), Vermont (July 1, 2025), and Massachusetts (October 29, 2025). This growing patchwork of pay transparency laws is becoming increasingly cumbersome for contractors to navigate and create coordinated strategies for compliance. So, contractors should consider reviewing their pay equity and transparency practices in light of these laws.

Of Counsel

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison & Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.
Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litiga

James A. Tucker

Jim maintains an active practice in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and contracting agencies and counsels clients in contract disputes and compliance obligations.

James Tucker

Damien is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. He represents clients in all facets of government contracts transactions, as well as regulatory counseling, subcon

Damien Specht

Damien C. Specht

FAR Council Withdraws “Pay Equity and Transparency” Proposed Rule

What You Need to Know About Restructuring and the Energy Crisis

211209-bankruptcylawinsights-webinars.jpg

211209-bankruptcylawinsights-webinars

On January 29, 2024, the Biden administration issued a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/30/2024-01343/office-of-federal-procurement-policy-federal-acquisition-regulation-pay-equity-and-transparency-in">Proposed Rule</a> that would prohibit federal contractors from seeking and considering compensation history when making employment decisions and require contractors to disclose compensation being offered in job postings. If implemented, the requirements will apply broadly to all federal contracts and subcontracts that are principally performed in the United States and cover all jobs that work on or in connection with a covered contract. Covered applicants and employees can submit complaints of alleged violations to the applicable contracting agency to “take action as appropriate,” and those agencies must forward to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) any such complaints that also allege discrimination.Released in recognition of the 15th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Proposed Rule further implements the policies that the Biden administration announced in its March 15, 2022, Executive Order 14069 to advance pay equity and transparency in federal contracting. It also follows the trend of states passing pay equity and transparency laws requiring businesses to post pay information in job postings and prohibiting use of salary history information. Contractors should consider reviewing their pay equity and transparency practices now in light of the Proposed Rule so they can be prepared to comply should the rule become final.  Read the full <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/240131-proposed-rule-seeks-to-mandate-pay-transparency" target="_blank">client alert</a>.

gray_keniece_blog_150x150.png

gray_keniece_common_640x280.jpg

gray_keniece_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gray_keniece_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gray_keniece_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Keniece Gray is an associate in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s Washington, D.C. office.

Keniece Y. Gray

Keniece Gray

210120-federal-building-election-briefing-tile-promo.jpg

New Guidance on COVID-19 Protocols for Contractor Employees at Federal Facilities

210120-federal-building-election-briefing-tile-promo

On January 29, 2024, the Biden administration issued a Proposed Rule that would prohibit federal contractors from seeking and considering compensation history when making employment decisions and require contractors to disclose compensation being offered in job postings.

Proposed Rule Seeks to Mandate Pay Transparency and Ban Using Salary History for Federal Contractors

In Innovative Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 6186, 62185, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or the “Board”) held that, despite the federal government’s failure to include or incorporate the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (“SCA”) FAR Clause 52.222-41 (the “SCA Clause”) in the contract, the contractor was required to comply with the SCA and not entitled to an equitable adjustment for all costs it incurred from a $1.5 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) for its noncompliance. This case serves as an important reminder for contractors to be vigilant in determining whether their services contracts are covered by the SCA, even if the agency fails to include or reference the SCA Clause. Read the <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/missing-sca-clause-did-not-excuse-noncompliance-or-allow-for-full-equitable-adjustment-" target="_self">full blog post</a>.

Missing SCA Clause Did Not Excuse Noncompliance or Allow for Full Equitable Adjustment

Nicole Giles is an associate in the Government Contracts practice in Morrison Foerster’s Washington, D.C. office.

Nicole E. Giles

Nicole Giles

230828-gov-con-blog.jpg

Missing SCA Clause Did Not Excuse Noncompliance or Allow for Full Equitable Adjustment

230828-gov-con-blog

In Innovative Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 6186, 62185, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or the “Board”) held that, despite the federal government’s failure to include or incorporate the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (“SCA”) FAR Clause 52.222-41 (the “SCA Clause”) in the contract, the contractor was required to comply with the SCA and not entitled to an equitable adjustment for all costs it incurred from a $1.5 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) for its noncompliance. 

Interested parties now have until December 13, 2022, to provide comments to the DOL’s proposed rule to codify a six-factor, economic reality test to determine who is an “independent contractor” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and thus not subject to minimum wage and overtime rules. What does the DOL’s proposed rule change?The DOL’s proposal would rescind a 2021 rule that primarily focused on two core factors—control over the work and opportunity for profit or loss—and considered to a lesser extent the amount of skill required for the work, degree of permanence of the working relationship, and whether the work was part of an integrated unit of production.The proposed test calls for a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis considering the following factors:1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill.2. Investments by the worker and the employer.3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship.4. Nature and degree of control.5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer's business.6. Skill and initiative.The proposed test would not assign special weight to any individual factor, nor would the above factors be exhaustive. Additional factors that indicate whether the worker is in business for themselves (as opposed to being economically dependent on the employer for work) would also be relevant to the independent contractor analysis.How can this impact my business?If finalized, the changes could have a significant impact on certain industries—such as the gig economy—that rely on independent contractor business models by reducing the number of workers who can be treated as independent contractors. The DOL’s analysis widens the scope of policies that may evidence “employee status,” calling out policies requiring workers to comply with legal, safety, or regulatory obligations, and placing greater weight on situations when an entity other than the worker sets a price or rate for the goods or services offered by the worker. Notably, the DOL’s test only applies to the FLSA, and it will have a limited impact on businesses operating in states with more stringent tests for classifying workers. For example, California primarily uses the “ABC test,” which presumes workers are employees instead of independent contractors unless the employer proves that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity; performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. However, the rule reflects ongoing moves by federal authorities (including the National Labor Relations Board and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) to extend federal worker protections to additional workers, while many state and local agencies are taking a similar approach.How should my business respond?Given increased enforcement focus on independent contractor classifications by federal and state authorities in recent years, it is important for any business that regularly utilizes independent contractors to continually evaluate these classifications and take steps to bolster their defensibility (e.g., by reviewing and revising written agreements, creating worker engagement and classification policies and procedures, and reviewing long-term contractor relationships).The DOL’s 2021 rule will remain in place until a final rule is issued, likely in the first half of 2023. We will continue to monitor developments related to the DOL’s proposed rule and its impact on employers.

schulman_michael_blog_150x150.png

schulman_michael_common_640x280.jpg

schulman_michael_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

schulman_michael_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

schulman_michael_social_600x600.jpg

Michael Schulman is a partner in the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group and co-head of the firm’s Washington, D.C. Litigation Department.

Michael Schulman

Department of Labor (“DOL”) Extends Comment Period Deadline for Proposed New Independent Contactor Test

Interested parties now have until December 13, 2022, to provide comments to the DOL’s proposed rule to codify a six-factor, economic reality test to determine who is an “independent contractor” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and thus not subject to minimum wage and overtime rules. 

Department of Labor (“DOL”) Extends Comment Period Deadline for Proposed New Independent Contactor Test

In the latest employment-related collaborations under President Biden, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) both recently announced new partnerships with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), with the aim of coordinating their policy and enforcement initiatives to protect workers’ rights and promote competition in labor markets. The DOJ and FTC separately entered memoranda of understanding with the NLRB. While neither memoranda is legally binding or has the force of law, the new partnerships emphasize these agencies’ interest in collaborating on enforcement activities relating to certain competition and labor issues, especially as it relates to the promotion of employee mobility.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220805-doj-and-ftc-enter-separate-mous">client alert</a>.

DOJ and FTC Enter Separate MOUs with the NLRB to Collaborate on Worker Protections and Competition in U.S. Labor Markets

Megan E. Gerking is a partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Global Antitrust Law Practice, where she specializes in government-facing antitrust matters. Megan represents companies in criminal and civil con

Megan Gerking

Megan E. Gerking

Sydney’s practice focuses on a broad range of intellectual property matters, including trade secrets, copyright, trademark, and patent litigation.

Sydney K. Cooper

Sydney Cooper

Rob Manoso is a trial lawyer and partner in Morrison Foerster’s Global Antitrust Law Practice Group. His practice focuses on advising clients on all aspects of antitrust investigations, litigation, and compliance.

Rob Manoso

DOJ and FTC Enter Separate MOUs with the NLRB to Collaborate on Worker Protections and Competition in U.S. Labor Markets

In the latest employment-related collaborations under President Biden, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) both recently announced new partnerships with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), with the aim of coordinating their policy and enforcement initiatives to protect workers’ rights and promote competition in labor markets. 

<div>On Friday afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, which had earlier issued a nationwide preliminary injunction of Executive Order 14042, against Executive Order 14042’s vaccine mandate, made clear that the injunction applies only to the vaccine mandate and not to other COVID-related requirements. (We previously reported on the nationwide injunction in our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220121-updates-to-task-force-guidance.html">client alert</a>.)  The order came in response to the federal government’s motion to clarify the following: </div>Defendants request clarification of whether the preliminary injunction is limited to enforcement of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force’s vaccination requirements, of whether it also prevents federal agencies from enforcing requirements related to masking and physical distancing and the identification of a person or persons to coordinate COVID-19 workplace safety efforts at covered contractor workplaces.<a class="anchor" href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220124-nationwide-preliminary-injunction.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email#_ftn1">[1]</a>To learn more, read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220124-nationwide-preliminary-injunction.html">client alert</a>.

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

Flight Support, Inc.

DynCorp Int’l LLC

Raytheon Co.

DynCorp International, LLC v. United States

URS Federal Servs., Inc.

DynCorp International, LLC

Planned Sys. Int’l, Inc.

Threat Mgmt. Group, LLC

Vencore Servs. & Solutions, Inc.

Jacobs Tech., Inc.

Cubic, Inc.

American Institutes for Research v. State of New Mexico

CACI-WGI, Inc.

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

IAP World Servs., Inc.

Size Appeal of IAP World Servs., Inc.

Al-Ghanim v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

O’Gara Training & Servs., LLC

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

AAR Mobility Sys.

Matt Martin Real Estate Mgm’t, LLC v. United States

Pyramid Real Estate Servs., LLC v. United States

Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc.

Homesource Real Estate Asset Servs., Inc. v. United States

Ocean Ships, Inc.

Keystone Sealift Servs., Inc.

ITT Corp., Sys. Div.

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.

FedSys, Inc.

Academy Facilities Mgm’t v. United States

Academy Facilities Management -- Advisory Opinion

Evans Security Solutions, Inc.

Contingency Mgm’t Group, LLC and IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Liberty Power Corp.

ward_alex_blog_150x150.png

ward_alex_common_640x280.jpg

ward_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_alex_social_600x600.jpg

J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. 

J. Ward

J. Alex Ward

Double-Take: Nationwide Preliminary Injunction of EO 14042 Limited to “Vaccine Mandate” Only