Home

This week we look at a case that covers the issue of what constitutes proper lawful consultation in smaller scale redundancies (fewer than 20). In particular, the case looks at whether there a need for group consultation, and what the rules are on timing.

Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1947 (2024), which held that a federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 666) does not criminalize “gratuities”—payments made corruptly to public officials after-the-fact as rewards for their actions—was lauded as a great win for the white-collar bar. But what about the Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation in Snyder? Not so great, at least in our view. Snyder’s majority opinion provides a playbook for the Supreme Court, in this and future iterations, to engage in a policy-first, text-last approach to statutory interpretation that should make our profession wary, white-collar bar included.

The decarbonisation of the built environment is likely to be on the UK Government’s agenda as it looks to make good on its commitment at COP29 to cut carbon emissions by 81% from 1990s level by 2035. How will this be achieved? Will Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards play a part, will we see more green leases or more building accreditations and is the UN’s Building Breakthrough initiative beginning to make a substantive difference?

In this Insight, first published in PLC, Yorkie Fong considers the decision in A&V Building Solution Ltd v J&B Hopkins Ltd [2024] EWHC 2295 (TCC), which clarified the binding nature of an adjudicator's decision on their fees and what constitutes a "substantial remedy" for interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

After months of speculation, the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order invalidating the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) rule increasing the minimum salary threshold that must be paid to certain employees to render them exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Specifically, the court found that the DOL exceeded its rulemaking authority by putting a “sharp increase” on salary minimums that “effectively displace[d]” the job duties tests for those exemptions. Many employers were awaiting this ruling as they considered whether to sharply increase certain exempt employees’ salaries on January 1 to meet the new threshold or reclassify them as “non-exempt” and start paying overtime. For now, employers can go “pencils down” on that review.