About
I’m a nationally quoted labor and employment, sports and business attorney, and the…
Services
Articles by Michael
Activity
7K followers
-
Michael Elkins shared this👀 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. I was recently quoted in Law360 as I weighed 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/ecsvRtyr #EmploymentLaw #SportsLaw #NFL #Arbitration #MLELaw
-
Michael Elkins shared thisFlorida 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
-
Michael Elkins shared thisAdvice I’d give my younger self or any young lawyer? Be practical. What does that mean? Means not selling people a fantasy! #EmploymentLaw #WorkplaceCulture #Leadership #BusinessLaw #AttorneyLife
-
Michael Elkins shared thisA 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
-
Michael Elkins shared thisMost 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
-
Michael Elkins shared thisTennessee just joined the ranks of many states by restricting the application of noncompetition 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. My home state of Florida on the other hand .... watch my vide to find out. 😉 #EmploymentLaw #NonCompete #BusinessNews #WorkforceTrends #TennesseeLaw
-
Michael Elkins shared thisA lot of employers are still wrestling with a question that came up constantly after COVID: if we let someone work remotely during the pandemic, are we now stuck offering remote work as a disability accommodation? A federal appeals court just provided guidance. On May 8, 2026, the Fifth Circuit decided 𝘏𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 𝘷. 𝘎𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘬, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. A copy of the decision is below 👇. In this case, the employee worked as an IT systems administrator for a federal contractor at Fort Polk. He teleworked during COVID, but the Army required contractors to return to the office in early 2022. After returning, he was diagnosed with autism, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder, and requested full-time remote work as an ADA accommodation. The company offered a hybrid schedule instead, two to three days from home per week. He rejected it. He later missed extended time from work and was terminated for absenteeism. He sued for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation. He lost all three claims. The court's reasoning is relevant for employers managing accommodation requests. First, the court confirmed that regular, on-site attendance is presumed to be an essential job function for most positions. The pandemic didn't change that. Allowing temporary remote work during a public health emergency does not permanently rewrite what a job requires. Second, the employee's insistence on full-time telework worked against him. Because he admitted he could only do his job from home, and the employer couldn't grant that without eliminating an essential function, he wasn't a "qualified individual" under the ADA, which is a required element of every disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claim. Third, the company's decision to offer a partial remote schedule actually strengthened its legal position. Employers don't have to give employees their preferred accommodation. They have to offer a reasonable one. GStek did exactly that. ⏩ Employer Takeaways: 1️⃣ Document which functions are essential in your job descriptions, including on-site attendance where that's genuinely required 2️⃣ Don't assume that pandemic-era flexibility created a permanent baseline for what accommodations you owe 3️⃣ Engage in the interactive process and document it, offering an alternative accommodation, even if the employee rejects it, matters 4️⃣ An employee's inability to perform essential functions defeats not just failure-to-accommodate claims, but also discrimination and retaliation claims tied to the same request The Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, so this decision is directly on point for employers in those states. If you're not in those states, make sure you consult with an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction. #EmploymentLaw #ADA #ReasonableAccommodation #RemoteWork #HRCompliance #BusinessOwners #WorkplacePolicy #ReturnToWork #FifthCircuit #LaborAndEmployment
-
Michael Elkins shared thisTennessee 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.
-
Michael Elkins shared thisThe 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
Michael Elkins replied to a comment
1mo
Liz Bligan Yes, I posted a video about this. Russini is out of work because of her job, not her gender. Russini was a reporter covering the NFL. A romantic relationship with an NFL coach is a clear journalistic conflict of interest. Vrabel, has no such professional conflict. His romantic relationship with her has no substantive impact on his job as a coach. I get your point but it just doesn’t apply in this situation.
-
Michael Elkins liked thisMichael Elkins liked thisA reminder that some of the best parts of a career aren’t found in meetings or scorecards. They’re found in the friendships built along the way. Grateful for a fun day with friends at the MassMutual 175 / Coastal Wealth AAX pickleball event - and for another incredible experience thoughtfully put together by Maria Fernanda Bueno.
-
Michael Elkins liked thisMichael Elkins liked this👀 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
-
Michael Elkins liked thisMichael Elkins liked thisFlorida 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
-
Michael Elkins liked thisMichael Elkins liked thisI own an American wagyu restaurant. Most people in finance think that's a weird flex. It's not a flex. It's a lesson. When we opened La Wagyeria, I wasn't thinking about food. I was thinking about what it takes to build something that still exists in 20 years. A restaurant is one of the hardest businesses to run. Thin margins. High turnover. Something breaks every week. The customer experience has to be perfect every time, or you don't survive. And if you can build systems around something that hard, systems that don't depend on you being there every night, you've learned something that almost no one teaches in business school. That same discipline is what I bring to Coastal Wealth. Not because finance and wagyu have anything in common. But because the way you build anything that lasts is the same: You obsess over the experience. You build systems that outlive decisions. You hire people who care more about the outcome than the title. And you stop treating it like something you own. You start treating it like something you're going to hand off. That's what a 100-year business looks like. That's what a 100-year family looks like too.
-
Michael Elkins liked thisMichael Elkins liked thisAdvice 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
-
Michael Elkins liked thisMichael Elkins liked thisMany #businessdisputes are not lost because of one major mistake. They are lost slowly through rushed decisions, emotional reactions, inconsistent communication, or information shared before a clear legal strategy is in place. A business owner receives an aggressive email and immediately responds out of frustration. A company discloses more information than necessary in an attempt to appear cooperative. Positions begin shifting from one conversation to the next. Internal communications become inconsistent. Important records are discussed casually before the full situation has been evaluated. Over time, leverage begins to weaken. #Leverage is not fixed. It changes throughout a dispute based on timing, documentation, communication, financial pressure, available evidence, and the strategic decisions made by both sides. Leverage strengthens when a business remains organized, consistent, and disciplined in how it communicates and responds. It weakens when information is disclosed too early, positions become inconsistent, or emotional reactions create unnecessary exposure. Protecting leverage often requires businesses to slow down and evaluate how each action may affect the broader situation. A rushed response, inconsistent explanation, or attempt to resolve issues informally without a clear strategy can create complications that become difficult to reverse later. At the same time, failing to preserve records or respond appropriately can weaken a company’s position just as quickly. Timing also matters. In some situations, immediate action is necessary to protect business interests. In others, gathering information and evaluating risk before responding may create a stronger position long-term. The balance depends on the facts, the documentation available, and the broader legal and business strategy involved. Businesses that navigate disputes effectively are usually intentional about every step they take. Because once leverage is lost, regaining it can become significantly more difficult and far more expensive. At Pitcoff Law Group, we help business owners evaluate disputes strategically, protect their legal position early, and make informed decisions designed to strengthen both leverage and long-term business stability. For more information or to schedule a complimentary consultation with one of our #businessattorneys, contact our office today: (646) 386-0990 We would be happy to assist you. #disputeresolution #legalinsights #newyorkbusinessattorneys
Experience & Education
-
MLE Law
View Michael’s full experience
See their title, tenure and more.
or
Recommendations received
1 person has recommended Michael
Join now to viewOther similar profiles
Explore more posts
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content