On January 6, 2021, the Department of Labor ("DOL") announced a final rule aimed at trying to clarify the standard for determining whether someone is an "employee" or "independent contractor" under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Absent any change in direction from the new Biden administration, the rule would go into effect on March 8, 2021 and would amend 29 CFR Chapter V by adding sections 795.100 through 795.110. In setting forth this new rule, the DOL aimed to provide less uncertainty in application of this test, especially in light of the novel issues raised by app-based, gig economy workers, among others. It is likely no coincidence that this new rule was promulgated on the heels of the passage of Proposition 22 in California, a ballot initiative that excepted app-based transportation and delivery companies from other laws that would have required these companies to classify their drivers as "employees" as opposed to "independent contractors."...

WSHB’s elite national trial team obtained a defense verdict from a jury in Orange County, California, on behalf of a property management company that specializes in community associations. The defendant was accused of wrongfully terminating an 11-year tenured employee while he was out on medical leave for treatment of Stage 4 cancer. This trial, the team’s second case taken to verdict during the Covid-19 pandemic, was conducted under less than ideal circumstances with social distancing being enforced by spreading jurors throughout the courtroom, impacting sight lines to witnesses and exhibits, and everyone being required to wear masks, which made both hearing and judging credibility difficult. Through extra effort, strategizing, planning and physical positioning during different phases of the trial, WSHB’s trial team was able to navigate the new difficulties created by the distancing requirements....

On January 21, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the long-standing principle in Florida that extra-contractual and consequential damages are not available to an insured who has not brought a "bad faith" action against their insurer. Instead, when an insured has only alleged that an insured has breached the terms of the policy, the insured is only entitled to recover the "amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy." As a consequence of its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the lower appellate court's finding that an insured could seek "consequential damages" for its lost rents even when the policy did not provide coverage for lost rental income so long as such those damages were "contemplated" or foreseen at the time the policy was issued....