Changes to TPS for Haiti and Impact on Employment Authorization

By Glenn Rissman on February 21, 2025 Posted in Immigration, Legislation & Regulations

According to an advance copy of a notice from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Secretary Kristi Noem is partially vacating the June 4, 2024 decision of former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that extended the designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and the new designation of Haiti for TPS. Former Secretary Mayorkas had extended the designation of Haiti for TPS for 18 months – to February 3, 2026 – and also newly designated Haiti for TPS for the same 18-month period – to February 3, 2026. DHS is now partially vacating the June 4, 2024 announcement and reducing the designation period from 18 months to 12 months. Under the new announcement, the TPS designation for Haiti will expire on August 3, 2025. The change impacts approximately 500,000 Haitian nationals in the United States.

National Labor Relations Board Rescinds Key Memoranda

By Glenn Rissman on February 18, 2025 Posted in Employee & Management Counseling, Employment Contracts & Corporate Issues, Hiring/Termination, Labor Law

Ver la versión en español aquí

On February 14, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel William Cowen rescinded several memoranda issued by the former General Counsel during the Biden Administration. Among the memoranda rescinded include:

Update – TPS for Venezuela Terminated

By Glenn Rissman on February 5, 2025 Posted in Immigration, Legislation & Regulations

Ver la versión en español aquí.

Last week, we posted about the revocation of the extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals from Venezuela. As explained last week, there were two Venezuela TPS designations:

A March 9, 2021 designation that expires on September 10, 2025. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must decide by July 12, 2025 whether to extend or terminate the designation.
An October 3, 2023 designation that expires on April 2, 2025.

On February 5, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a notice in the Federal Register terminating the October 3, 2023 TPS designation of Venezuela. The termination will be effective sixty (60) days after the publication of the notice in the Federal Register–April 7, 2025. Nationals of Venezuela under the October 2023 designation will no longer have Temporary Protected Status as of 11:59 p.m. on April 7 and will lose their authorization to work on April 2.

Venezuela TPS – Extension Vacated – More Details on February 1

By Glenn Rissman on January 30, 2025 Posted in Immigration, Legislation & Regulations

Ver la versión en español aquí.

Last week, we posted about the Biden administration’s January 17 extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan. On January 28, new Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem vacated the notice extending the TPS designation for Venezuela, Vacatur of 2025 Temporary Protected Status Decision for Venezuela. As of this writing, the extensions for El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine remain in effect. As a result of Secretary Noem’s order, the expiration dates for TPS for Venezuela will revert to the pre-January 17 expiration dates.

TPS Extensions for El Salvador, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan

By Glenn Rissman on January 21, 2025 Posted in Employee Handbooks & Policies, Immigration, Legislation & Regulations

Ver la versión en español aquí.

In the waning days of the Biden administration, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) extended the designation of El Salvador, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for an additional 18 months.

The TPS extensions are as follows:

El Salvador – March 10, 2025 to September 9, 2026
Venezuela – April 3, 2025 to October 2, 2026
Ukraine – April 20, 2025 to October 19, 2026
Sudan – April 20, 2025 to October 19, 2026

Happy Holidays from Stearns Weaver Miller’s Labor & Employment Department!

By Stearns Weaver Miller on December 10, 2024 Posted in Employment Litigation, Labor Law

Ver la versión en español aquí.

Thank you for being a subscriber. Wishing you a joyous holiday season and happy, healthy year ahead.

We hope that BeLabor the Point has brought you important information throughout the year and a few smiles along the way. Speaking of smiles, click on the image below to view our Labor & Employment Law Department’s holiday card!

Change To Salary Test For Exempt Employees: Everything We Know Is Now Wrong!

By Robert Turk on November 19, 2024 Posted in Employee Benefits & Compensation, Legislation & Regulations, Wage & Hour/Employee Classification

Ver la versión en español aquí.

As we all know, earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor instituted a final rule revising the salary test for executive, administrative and professional employee exemptions from overtime. The rule took effect in two steps. The first step took effect on July 1, 2024 when the salary threshold for overtime exemption increased from $684.00 per week to $844.00 per week.

The second step was to take effect on January 1, 2025 when the exemption salary threshold was to increase to $1,128.00 per week (the equivalent of $58,656 per year). The rule also increased the annual salary exemption threshold for highly compensated employees from $107,432 to $132,964.

However, this past Friday, a federal judge in Texas issued an order retroactively stopping the increase in salary thresholds for exempt employees. This order is effective nationwide.

“Now We Got Bad Blood”: When Discretionary Bonuses Don’t Meet Employee Expectations

By Stearns Weaver Miller on October 30, 2024 Posted in Employee & Management Counseling, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Employment Contracts & Corporate Issues

Ver la versión en español aquí.

Much like Taylor Swift’s Bad Blood, bonus plans can sour an employer-employee relationship when an employee’s expectations are undercut by the plan’s fine print.

This was the case in Presidio, Inc. v. Feeny, a case decided in February 2024 by the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, centering on whether the employer breached an employment contract by withholding an employee’s expected bonus, despite the employee’s department meeting its objectives.

Top Takeaways: 2024 Miami Labor & Employment Law Update “Marching Back to the Future”

By Stearns Weaver Miller on October 28, 2024 Posted in Disability & Leave, Employee & Management Counseling, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Labor Law, Legislation & Regulations, Wage & Hour/Employee Classification

Ver la versión en español aquí.

Thank you to all who attended our Labor and Employment Law Update as we shared our insights on a broad range of topics. It was a pleasure to see so many familiar faces, including friends and valued clients. We hope you found the seminar both educational and entertaining, as we certainly enjoyed having you with us. If you have questions regarding any of our presentations, please do not hesitate to contact any of the presenters.

As we look ahead, we are excited to let you know that we’ll be hosting a full-day seminar in May 2025. We’ll be sure to keep you informed with more details as we get closer to the date, and we’d love to see you there!

Please contact us if you would like additional copies of our recently published 2024 Pocket Guide to Florida Employment Laws or if you did not receive HRCI, SHRM, and CLE credit information.

If you were unable to attend or would like a quick refresher, below are the top takeaways from each session:

Courts Grapple with Actionable Harm After Muldrow

By Melanie Leitman on October 10, 2024 Posted in Disability & Leave, Discrimination & Harassment, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Hiring/Termination

Ver la versión en español aquí.

A prior BeLabor the Point posting discussed the US Supreme Court’s re-calibration of what is considered to be an actionable harm under federal anti-discrimination laws in the 2024 opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. As a follow up to that article, we conducted a survey of where courts across the country are drawing the line between an actionable harm and an insignificant harm in discrimination cases.

Ultimately, courts appear to be struggling with this line-drawing exercise in the wake of Muldrow and are giving much greater deference to allegations which raise harm or disadvantage, even if it may be insufficient to materially alter the terms and conditions of employment under the historical standard. It is important to note that the harms listed below as sufficient for the case to proceed, as with the harms in Muldrow, do not establish liability, they are merely sufficient to survive early dismissal. The examples below are pulled from various court opinions around the country applying the Muldrow approach.