On April 29, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered its long-anticipated decision in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking LLC, et al., unanimously affirming that a no-hire agreement between a business entity and its service vendor was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint on trade. The court’s ruling is illustrative of widespread resistance to enforce non-poaching agreements and highlights that Pennsylvania strongly disfavors such restrictions unless they are narrowly tailored.

As the COVID-19 vaccine rollout continues into summer, states are beginning to ease their coronavirus-related restrictions in favor of new, more flexible guidelines for vaccinated individuals. In a sampling of the similarities and differences in guidance, this alert covers recent changes in New York and Illinois.

Since the COVID-19 crisis began, New York’s legal community has been closely following developments regarding a series of Executive Orders issued by Governor Cuomo involving the suspension and/or tolling of legal deadlines during the 228-day period from March 20 to November 3, 2020. In particular, uncertainty had lingered as to whether these orders would effectively “toll” statutes of limitations and other legal deadlines, or alternatively, merely “suspend” them.

By statute, owners of “one- or two-family dwellings” are exempt from liability under the express language of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), unless they directed or controlled the work being performed. The exemption does not apply to general contractors or subcontractors, even if they worked on single-family homes. 

Currently, California law requires the employer to pay the employee a meal period premium of one hour’s wages at the employee’s “regular rate of compensation”. (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7) Last week, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument centering on the meaning of “the regular rate of compensation” with respect to meal and rest period premiums.

Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

On March 3, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit that has significant implications for the payment processing industry. The complaint alleges that BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc. and its founder and former chief executive officer, Kevin Howard, knowingly processed payments for companies that purported to offer technical-support services and products over the internet, but actually tricked consumers into purchasing expensive and unnecessary software or services.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), acting on behalf of other White House offices and the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), is requesting comments on a new Technical Support Document that would substantially increase the numerical values used to calculate estimates for the Social Cost of GHG.