MLE Law

👀 Quoted in Law360 As the legal battle surrounding Brian Flores continues, the conversation has shifted to arbitration, accountability, and how employment disputes are resolved within professional sports. MLE Law founder Michael Elkins was recently quoted in Law360, weighing in on how independent arbitration structures could help prevent future conflicts and why organizations often prefer arbitration over traditional court proceedings. Click the link 🔗 below 👇 to read the entire article. Article Link: https://lnkd.in/e8iR7ce4 #EmploymentLaw #SportsLaw #NFL #Arbitration #MLELaw

Florida employers just got a big win from the Florida Supreme Court. On May 28, the Court decided 𝘎𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘷. 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 and settled a question that had divided Florida's appellate courts. Decision ⬇️. When an employee sues for retaliation under the state private sector Whistleblower's Act, do they have to prove the conduct they complained about actually broke the law, or is it enough that they sincerely and reasonably believed it did? The Court's answer: belief is not enough. The employee has to prove that the employer’s activity, policy, or practice is in violation of law—that is, it constitutes a violation of the law—not that the employer has already in fact violated the law, nor that the employee reasonably believed the employer violated the law. Here is the background. Clint Gessner worked as a welder mechanic at a Gulf Power plant. After a series of reprimands and a stint on probation, the company fired him following a meeting where he used a racial slur. Gessner sued, arguing he was really let go for raising a string of safety concerns he believed were illegal. The statute he sued under protects employees who object to "any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." For years, Florida courts split on what that phrase requires. One appellate district held that an employee only needed a good faith, reasonable belief that something was illegal. Others read the plain text to require an actual violation. The Supreme Court sided with the stricter reading. To win, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the activity they objected to was, by its nature, a violation of law. A sincere hunch, even a reasonable one, is not enough. One nuance matters a great deal, and it is easy to miss. The Court did not say the illegal act must already be finished or proven up by an agency first. An employee who refuses to carry out an instruction to do something illegal is still protected, even if the employer never follows through. The point is that the conduct has to genuinely break the law, not simply look unlawful to the employee. Gessner lost because he showed only that he raised safety complaints and thought they involved legal violations. He never connected those complaints to an actual breach of a specific law. Why this matters: → The standard is now uniform statewide. Before this decision, an employee's odds could turn on which part of Florida the lawsuit landed in. That forum lottery is over. → Weak claims are easier to defeat early. A plaintiff who cannot point to conduct that constitutes a violation of law should not survive summary judgment. → This is not a license to retaliate. If an employee objects to something that truly was illegal, they remain fully protected. This decision rewards employers who handle complaints and discipline the right way. It does nothing for those who cut corners. #EmploymentLaw #HR #HumanResources

Advice Michael Elkins would give his younger self or any young lawyer? Be practical. What does that mean? Means not selling people a fantasy! #EmploymentLaw #WorkplaceCulture #Leadership #BusinessLaw #AttorneyLife

A new Florida law clarifies the processing of state-law discrimination claims. On May 22, 2026, Governor DeSantis signed HB 1407. It takes effect July 1, 2026, and it rewrites the procedural clock on how and when discrimination claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) can be brought in court against your business. Here's what changed: Before this law, there was a genuine legal mess. When an employee filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC or the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), courts disagreed about when the one-year deadline to sue under Florida state law claims actually started running. Florida's First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal had directly conflicting answers to that question. That uncertainty was a problem for employers trying to assess litigation risk. HB 1407 resolves the split. Under the new rules: ➔ An employee has one year from the FCHR's reasonable cause determination, OR the EEOC's notice of right to sue, whichever comes first, to file suit under the FCRA. ➔ If neither agency acts within 180 days, the employee has 18 months from the date the charge was filed to bring a civil action, period. ➔ The law also eliminates the registered mail requirement for certain FCHR notices, modernizing the process and eliminating disputes over whether proper notice was given. What this doesn't change: the underlying conduct that's prohibited. The FCRA still bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, and marital status. HB 1407 didn't touch any of that. What it does change is how fast a claim can land on your desk. Clearer deadlines mean employees and their attorneys know exactly when they need to act, which means less procedural delay before litigation begins. #EmploymentLaw #FloridaEmploymentLaw #HumanResources #HRCompliance #EmployerDefense #FloridaBusiness #FCRA #WorkplaceLaw #BusinessOwners #EmploymentLitigation

Most employers think of Title IX as the law that governs student athletics and campus discrimination. It may become something much more. On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear 𝘊𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘷. 𝘉𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘢, a case that will decide whether employees at federally funded educational institutions can sue for sex discrimination under Title IX, not just Title VII. Here's the issue: Title VII already prohibits employment sex discrimination and gives employees a clear process: file with the EEOC, wait for a right-to-sue letter, then litigate within damages caps. Title IX, originally designed to protect students, has no such requirements. No EEOC filing. No administrative exhaustion. And no cap on compensatory damages. Federal appellate courts have been split on this question for decades. Eight circuits have allowed employees to pursue Title IX workplace claims. The Fifth, Seventh, and now Eleventh Circuits say Title VII is the exclusive remedy. Now, the Supreme Court is stepping in to resolve the conflict. The two plaintiffs at the center of the case tell the story well. A former Georgia Tech women's basketball coach claims she was pushed out after raising concerns about resource disparities between the men's and women's programs. A former Augusta University art professor alleges he was treated unfairly during a Title IX investigation triggered by student complaints. Both lost their Title IX employment claims in the Eleventh Circuit. Both are now at the Supreme Court. If the Court sides with the employees, institutions receiving federal funding face a significant expansion of employment litigation risk, claims brought without any EEOC process and with uncapped damages. If the Court sides with the institutions, Title VII remains the lane for workplace sex discrimination claims, with all of its procedural guardrails intact. The case is scheduled for the October 2026 term. Educational institutions, healthcare systems, and other federally funded employers should watch it closely and use the time between now and oral argument to make sure their internal Title IX and Title VII compliance programs are aligned and defensible. #EmploymentLaw #TitleIX #TitleVII #HRCompliance #HigherEducation #SupremeCourt #WorkplaceDiscrimination #EmployerDefense

Tennessee is following the trend of restricting the use of noncompete agreements. Beginning July 1, 2026, employers in Tennessee will no longer be able to enforce noncompete agreements against employees earning less than $70,000 annually. And this is bigger than just one state. As more lawmakers begin questioning restrictive employment agreements, businesses everywhere should be paying attention to where this conversation is heading next. #EmploymentLaw #NonCompete #BusinessNews #WorkforceTrends #TennesseeLaw

Urban Meyer just lost his arbitration case against the Jacksonville Jaguars — and it cost him $30 million. When “fired with cause” actually means something, it means everything. Here’s what you need to know. #UrbanMeyer #Jaguars #EmploymentLaw #FiredForCause #KnowYourRights

Tennessee joined the ranks of the states that restrict the application of non-competition agreements. Effective July 1, 2026, Tennessee's new law prohibits employers from requiring, requesting, or enforcing a noncompete agreement against any employee whose annualized compensation is less than $70,000. That threshold covers wages, salary, commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, and other forms of remuneration. For hourly workers, annualized compensation is calculated by multiplying the hourly rate by 40, then by 52. Any noncompete that violates the threshold is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The law also does something that helps employers: it creates rebuttable presumptions on duration. For former employees and independent contractors, restraints of two years or less are presumed reasonable. Anything longer is presumed unreasonable. A few other key points worth noting: 1️⃣ Nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreements are not affected by the new law and remain fully enforceable tools to protect trade secrets, client relationships, and confidential business information. 2️⃣ The law applies to agreements entered into, renewed, or amended on or after July 1, 2026, so renewing an existing agreement after that date triggers the new requirements. 3️⃣ The $70,000 threshold applies only to employees, not independent contractors. Tennessee is not alone. The trend toward restricting noncompetes at the state level is accelerating. California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma maintain full bans on noncompete agreements. Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine have all enacted income threshold restrictions. Washington state went even further in March 2026, passing legislation that bans noncompetes between employers and employees or independent contractors altogether, effective June 30, 2027. Florida is going in the exact opposite direction. Effective July 1, 2025, the Florida CHOICE Act became law, expanding upon Florida's already employer-friendly noncompete enforcement to create greater flexibility and enhanced protections for enforcement of restrictive covenants. The CHOICE Act permits noncompetes of up to four years for covered employees, far longer than what most states allow. Under the CHOICE Act, among other employer-friendly provisions, the burden shifts to the employee to demonstrate that the agreement is unenforceable, a significant departure from how most states approach enforcement. The patchwork of state laws governing noncompetes has never been more complex. If your business operates across multiple states, or if you hire remote workers in different jurisdictions, what works in Florida may be completely unenforceable in Tennessee, and void from day one in California or Minnesota. Don't fall into the one-size-fits-all trap.

The EEO-1 report may be on its way out, but don't stop preparing to file just yet. On May 14, 2026, the EEOC submitted a proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to rescind the EEO-1 reporting requirement. The proposal would eliminate not just the EEO-1, but the full suite of workforce demographic reporting forms, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, and EEO-5, along with reporting requirements tied to Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA. This has been expected. Stakeholders anticipated the second Trump administration would target EEO-1 reporting, in line with what Project 2025 had proposed. But here's what employers with 100 or more employees need to understand: nothing has changed ... yet. The rescission must move through several steps under the Administrative Procedure Act, OIRA review, a 60-day Federal Register comment period, and an Information Collection Request, before it takes effect. That timeline is tight relative to this year's filing window. And if the EEOC tries to skip the collection without completing that process, it could face lawsuits similar to those from 2019, which ultimately forced the government to collect the missing data. The practical takeaway: keep preparing your EEO-1 data as if the 2026 filing is happening. Covered Employers should continue gathering EEO-1 job category, ethnicity/race, gender, and establishment information based on a pay period in October, November, or December 2025. There's also a longer-term consideration here. Even if the federal requirement disappears, the reasons to track workforce demographic data don't, state law obligations, internal risk assessment, and litigation defense remain whether or not Washington requires the form. #EmploymentLaw #HRCompliance #EEO1 #EEOC #WorkplaceCompliance #EmployerAdvice #HumanResources #LaborLaw

The DOL finally made it official: the Biden administration's 2024 overtime rule is gone for good. On May 14, the Department of Labor issued a formal amendment removing the 2024 rule's regulatory language from the Code of Federal Regulations entirely. That rule would have pushed the salary threshold for the white-collar overtime exemption to over $58,000 per year, essentially extending overtime coverage to nearly 4 million additional workers. Federal courts in Texas vacated it before it could fully take effect, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the final appeal earlier this month. The DOL's amendment puts the final nail in the coffin. So where does that leave employers right now? The current thresholds under the 2019 rule are back in force: ✅ $684 per week ($35,568 annually) for executive, administrative, and professional employees ✅ $107,432 annually for highly compensated employees A few important reminders. 1️⃣ This is a federal floor. Several states have their own, more demanding overtime thresholds, so the rules in your specific jurisdiction matter. 2️⃣ The salary level is only one part of the white-collar exemption analysis. The duties test still applies, and misclassifying employees based on salary alone remains one of the most common and costly wage and hour mistakes employers make. The regulatory landscape around overtime has been in flux for years, and it would be naive to assume it stays here permanently. The 2019 rule itself was an update to a prior threshold, and future administrations will almost certainly revisit this issue. Structured classification practices now will put you in a much better position whenever the next change comes. #EmploymentLaw #HRCompliance #WageAndHour #FLSA #OvertimeRule #BusinessOwners #HumanResources #LaborLaw