In today’s news and commentary, West Virginia passes a bill for gig drivers, the Tenth Circuit rejects an engineer’s claims of race and age bias, and a discussion on the spread of judicial curtailment of NLRB authority.

West Virginia lawmakers passed HB 4009, allowing gig companies like Uber and DoorDash to contribute to workers’ portable benefits accounts without jeopardizing their classification as independent contractors. The bill, part of a workforce package backed by Gov. Patrick Morrisey, cleared the legislature on March 14 and awaits his signature. Gig workers typically lack protections such as minimum wage, union rights, and employer-sponsored benefits. Supporters say the measure expands access to benefits while preserving flexible work. Critics argue contributions will be too small to cover costs like health insurance and fail to replace employee protections. The bill also includes tax deductions for contributions and withdrawals.

A Chinese-American engineer, Hua Jiang, lost his appeal in the Tenth Circuit after claiming race and age discrimination in Tulsa’s hiring process for a water plant superintendent. The court upheld summary judgment for the city, finding its preference for leadership experience over Jiang’s stronger academic qualifications was legitimate. Although the city initially violated its own degree requirements, judges said these procedural issues didn’t prove discrimination or retaliation. Jiang’s claims under federal and state anti-discrimination laws failed because he couldn’t show the city’s reasoning was a pretext, especially given the selected candidate’s stronger management experience.

Bloomberg reports that a recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit could significantly limit the NLRB’s long-standing practice of shaping labor policy through case decisions. The court found the board overstepped its authority in the Cemex case by effectively creating new rules through adjudication rather than formal rulemaking. Legal experts say this reasoning may spread to other circuits, threatening decades of precedent and complicating how the NLRB develops labor law. If widely adopted, the approach could force the agency to rely more on rulemaking, a process it rarely uses and may struggle to implement. The decision reflects broader judicial skepticism toward administrative agencies and could lead to increased challenges to existing labor standards.