
Gurtaran Johal is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s news and commentary, two federal agencies violate a federal court order that paused the mass layoffs of federal workers; Walmart terminates some jobs in Florida following Supreme Court rulings on the legal status of migrants; and Los Angeles firefighters receive a $9.5 million settlement from a federal court case arguing that the city did not pay firefighters during shift changes.
Bloomberg Law reports that the U.S. State Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as the American Federation of Government Employees and other unions contend, have continued to participate in the mass layoffs of federal employees, despite a federal court order halting President Trump’s executive order to implement these drastic layoffs. The unions filed an urgent request for a status conference before Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to resolve the dispute. Judge Illston had previously issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting federal agencies from engaging with these mass firings. Counsel for the government argues that the agencies’ conduct does not violate the preliminary injunction because they took action following a directive from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, not in response to the executive order. The unions have requested that the status conference occur by the end of the week.
Meanwhile, Walmart Inc. notified migrant workers in at least two stores in Florida that they would lose their positions without proper work authorization. This move comes after the Supreme Court ruling that ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Venezuelans migrants. TPS formerly allowed these migrants to legally work in the United States. Walt Disney Co. also notified Florida-based employees without legal residency that they would lose their positions. These job cuts are a potential indicator of the future challenges that migrant workers will face under the Trump Administration.
Lastly, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved a $9.5 million settlement for firefighters in Los Angeles who argued that they were not paid in full for up to an hour and a half of work during shift changes. Specifically, due to staffing shortages, firefighters often worked beyond their shift. The settlement agreement includes $2.3 million in attorneys’ fees and $16,000 in litigation costs for the plaintiffs. This approval comes approximately a month after the city of Los Angeles and the firefighters initially reached the $9.5 million settlement.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
June 5
Nail technicians challenge California classification; oral arguments in challenge to LGBTQ hiring protections; judge blocks Job Corps shutdown.
June 4
Federal agencies violate federal court order pausing mass layoffs; Walmart terminates some jobs in Florida following Supreme Court rulings on the legal status of migrants; and LA firefighters receive a $9.5 million settlement for failure to pay firefighters during shift changes.
June 3
Federal judge blocks Trump's attack on TSA collective bargaining rights; NLRB argues that Grindr's Return-to-Office policy was union busting; International Trade Union Confederation report highlights global decline in workers' rights.
June 2
Proposed budgets for DOL and NLRB show cuts on the horizon; Oregon law requiring LPAs in cannabis dispensaries struck down.
June 1
In today’s news and commentary, the Ninth Circuit upholds a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration, a federal judge vacates parts of the EEOC’s pregnancy accommodation rules, and video game workers reach a tentative agreement with Microsoft. In a 2-1 decision issued on Friday, the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration […]
May 30
Trump's tariffs temporarily reinstated after brief nationwide injunction; Louisiana Bill targets payroll deduction of union dues; Colorado Supreme Court to consider a self-defense exception to at-will employment