
Justin Cassera is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s news and commentary, the Supreme Court extinguishes ADA protections for retirees, the DOL halts enforcement of a farmworker regulation, and New York City announces new minimum-pay rules for rideshare drivers.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanley v. City of Sanford that retirees cannot sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act unless they hold or seek employment at the time of the alleged discrimination. The case involved Karyn Stanley, a retired firefighter who argued that Sanford’s retirement policy discriminated against disabled retirees. Justice Gorsuch, for the majority, concluded that the statute’s use of present-tense verbs “holds,” “desires,” and “can perform” indicate that the ADA protects only those actively participating in the workforce. Justice Jackson, writing alone in dissent, called the majority’s textualist approach “incessantly malleable,” turning the Court’s duty of statutory interpretation into “a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences.” The ruling resolves a circuit split on the issue.
On Friday, the Department of Labor announced it was ending its enforcement of Biden-era organizing protections for foreign farm workers on seasonal H-2A visas. The regulation, promulgated by the Department in 2024, was intended to standardize labor protections across the economy so as to not disadvantage citizen workers who initially enjoyed greater protections. Several federal courts have since upheld or blocked the rule in different parts of the country. Explaining its decision, the DOL stated that the regulation has “created significant legal uncertainty, inconsistency, and operational challenges for farmers lawfully employing H-2A workers.” By ending enforcement of the regulation, the agency aims to provide clarity and predictability while “aligning with President Trump’s ongoing commitment to strictly enforcing U.S. immigration laws.”
On Friday, New York City announced a 5% increase in minimum-pay rules for rideshare drivers. The increase, which still must pass a Taxi and Limousine Commission board vote on Wednesday, is smaller than the 6.1% originally proposed. The finalized amount represents a compromise between the TLC and rideshare apps, who argued that the increase would mean higher prices for consumers. The new rules will also require companies to give 72-hour notice to drivers they intend to “lock out” of the app, closing a loophole left by the state’s regulatory scheme. Both Lyft and Uber shares reacted negatively to the news.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
September 17
A union argues the NLRB's quorum rule is unconstitutional; the California Building Trades back a state housing law; and Missouri proposes raising the bar for citizen ballot initiatives
September 16
In today’s news and commentary, the NLRB sues New York, a flight attendant sues United, and the Third Circuit considers the employment status of Uber drivers The NLRB sued New York to block a new law that would grant the state authority over private-sector labor disputes. As reported on recently by Finlay, the law, which […]
September 15
Unemployment claims rise; a federal court hands victory to government employees union; and employers fire workers over social media posts.
September 14
Workers at Boeing reject the company’s third contract proposal; NLRB Acting General Counsel William Cohen plans to sue New York over the state’s trigger bill; Air Canada flight attendants reject a tentative contract.
September 12
Zohran Mamdani calls on FIFA to end dynamic pricing for the World Cup; the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement opens a probe into Scale AI’s labor practices; and union members organize immigration defense trainings.
September 11
California rideshare deal advances; Boeing reaches tentative agreement with union; FTC scrutinizes healthcare noncompetes.