Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
Developing Anti-‘Debanking’ Trend in Red States? A new front appears to have opened in the ongoing battle over environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. In March Idaho Gov. Brad...
FL Requests Medicaid Waiver to Bolster Health Workforce Florida is seeking a federal waiver to use Medicaid funding to expand its health care workforce, a plan that could be adopted by other states....
A couple of years ago, the idea of switching to a four-day workweek seemed to be catching on in state legislatures . As many as six states, including Maryland , Massachusetts and Pennsylvania , considered...
PA Enacts Crypto Transmitter Licensing Requirements Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) signed legislation requiring cryptocurrency and other virtual monetary transmitters to be licensed by the state...
MO Lawmakers Repeal Voter-Approved Paid Sick Leave Law Eight months after Missouri voters approved Proposition A, mandating paid sick leave and a $13.75 minimum wage, Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed legislation...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that federal law preempts a California law that allows private lawsuits on behalf of groups of workers, even if they had agreed to resolve their disputes through individual arbitration. In an 8-1 vote, the justices said the Federal Arbitration Act supersedes the California statute, the only one of its kind in the country. By doing so, the court said, employees were illegally allowed to escape binding arbitration agreements they signed at hiring.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) called the ruling “disappointing,” but said employees could still bring suits on behalf of others if they did not sign such an agreement. (LOS ANGELES TIMES, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICES)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said a tech industry-backed ballot question to change how gig workers are classified in the Bay State is unconstitutional because it contains “vaguely worded provisions” buried deep in a proposal that, in effect, melded two unrelated subjects under a single question.
Under the proposal, companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, and others would have provided workers with some new benefits while continuing to classify their drivers and deliverers as independent contractors rather than employees. But the court ruled the proposal contained at least two “substantively distinct” issues, one of which was masked by “obscure language” that went far beyond just establishing a worker’s employee vs. contractor status. (BOSTON GLOBE)
--Compiled by RICH EHISEN