The Court has issued a number of controversial and impactful decisions this term. We review a few of the decisions that will likely be most impactful for employers. If any employers require experienced guidance regarding these or any other employment issues, contact the legal team at MNK Law, at info@mnklawyers.com, or 562.362.6437.
Trump v. Casa, Inc.
The Supreme Court in its June 27, 2025 decision, available online, took steps to restrict U.S. district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. The issue before the court was whether district courts could issue nationwide injunctions. The district courts have now been greatly restricted from doing so. The U.S. Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court still can issue nationwide injunctions. Additionally, plaintiffs still can bring class action lawsuits.
Effects for Employers: The court’s ruling regarding birthright citizenship touches upon the incendiary topic of immigration. However, the decision could have effects more far reaching than that for employers, particularly those employers operating in multiple states. Experts believe that due to the ruling, multistate employers will likely face even more variance nationwide, in their various locations of operation. The multiple rules in various states will likely see less unification nationwide due to the restriction of district court injunctions. In addition, rules in different district courts within the same state might be different. Applicable laws will be increasingly fragmented for multistate employers, and the process of determining applicable laws will be more difficult. Human resources and other staff helping employers must be acutely aware of the issues impacting compliance in each state that they have operations.
E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera
This decision by the Supreme Court found that employers do not need to show by clear and convincing evidence that a worker is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA’s) overtime requirements. The usual, lesser preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies to such determinations.
Effects for Employers: This is a win for employers. It will be easier to defend misclassification and unpaid overtime lawsuits. E.M.D. v. Carrera means that employers only need to show that the overtime exemption “more likely than not” applies. The burden of proof has been lessened. However, employers should ensure they create robust documentation and meet all labor regulations under the FLSA and state laws in any state of operations. More documentation regarding compliance can never hurt.
Stanley v. City of Sanford
The Supreme Court in its decision examined a claim brought by a retiree pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), regarding retirement health benefits. The Supreme Court in its decision affirmed the lower courts’ rulings finding that Title I of the ADA did not extend to claims of discrimination brought by retirees. The Court agreed with the reasoning that the definition of a “qualified individual,” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), was limited only to current or prospective employees. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Title I of the ADA only protects “qualified individuals”—those who currently hold or desire a job and are capable of performing its essential functions, with or without accommodation. It does not cover retirees or former employees who no longer meet those criteria. Specifically, the Court explained that the statute’s repeated use of present‐tense verbs (“holds,” “desires,” “can perform”) makes clear that its reach ends once employment ceases or is no longer sought.
Effects for Employers: For employers, this means they are not liable under Title I for disability-based changes to post-employment benefits—such as altering retiree health insurance—so long as those retirees aren’t actively employed or seeking rehire. This ruling offers legal clarity and protection for employers navigating benefit policies.
Any employers seeking further clarity and help navigating labor regulations regarding benefits or other policies should contact the experienced counsel at MNK Law, at 562.362.6437, or info@mnklawyers.com.