This case makes my head hurt.

Two states and D.C., plus a number of local governments, will increase their minimum wages on July 1.

There are probably worse ideas, but I can't think of any right now.

I was on vacation last week, and so we have a lot of catching up to do. Here's what's been going on, from most to least recent:

*David Phippen has been keeping us up to date on the U.S. Department of Labor's Persuader Rule and what that will mean for employers. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Minnesota refused to preliminarily block enforcement of the rule. There are two other challenges ...

We now have an April Fool's Day Persuader Rule challenge (but it's real). The National Federation of Independent Business leads this group of plaintiffs, and has filed suit in federal court in Texas, which is in the Fifth Circuit. The other two lawsuits were filed in Arkansas and Minnesota, both in the Eighth Circuit.

Here's our scorecard:

PERSUADER RULE SCORECARD

March 30

UPDATE (April 1): Here's the latest challenge, filed today in federal court in Texas.

Mercy me! We now have a second challenge to the U.S. Department of Labor's Persuader Rule, filed today in federal court in Minnesota. This morning, I reported on a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in Arkansas. What will tomorrow bring?

The Minnesota lawsuit was filed by a network of labor ...

NOTE (3/16/16): This post has been corrected since it was originally posted. 

President Obama has nominated Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Judge Garland, age 63, had bipartisan support when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit (in 1995, by President ...

Law360 reported yesterday morning that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a transgender discrimination and harassment lawsuit (not our Detroit-area funeral home case). Although the employer entered into the consent decree voluntarily, we now have a pretty good idea of what the EEOC thinks employers should do in dealing with employees who are ...

I haven't had a chance to analyze yesterday's Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, so meanwhile here is a link to a "plain English" summary of the decision, and here is a link to the decision. Both from the outstanding SCOTUSblog.

We will have more on this in the not-too-distant future. Don't go away!

This is a first. I don't think I've ever agreed with Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the same time. What's the world coming to?

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie means this: if an employment decision is motivated by religion - even if the employer does not actually know the religious need of the individual - then the employer may be liable ...