From Plessy to Brown: The Legacy of Legal Resistance and the Ongoing Struggle for Equality

This weekend marks a pair of defining anniversaries in the long and unfinished arc of civil rights law in the United States. Seventy-one years ago today, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, holding that state-sanctioned segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just one day later—129 years ago on May 18, 1896—the Court had ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that “separate but equal” facilities were constitutionally permissible.

The two decisions, born of very different Americas, bookend a chapter of legal history that continues to shape our constitutional understanding of equality. But while Brown is rightly remembered as a judicial triumph, its roots lie not only in courtrooms, but in the determined legal creativity of Black communities and civil rights lawyers who, for decades, navigated hostile systems to force the law to live up to its promises.

Legal Resistance in the Jim Crow Era

The aftermath of Plessy did not silence efforts for justice—it reshaped them. In an era when criminal courts often denied Black Americans even the pretense of fairness, civil courts became a battleground. As historian Myisha S. Eatmon and others have shown, Black Southerners used tort and contract law to claim equal treatment, often suing railroad companies and winning damages before all-white juries. These lawsuits became one of the few legal avenues where rights could be asserted and economic dignity defended.

This strategy laid the groundwork for later constitutional claims. In the early twentieth century, Black lawyers began challenging segregated school systems not by contesting the idea of separation outright, but by proving the glaring inequalities between white and Black schools. The courts could not ignore the disparity between theory and practice. It was a narrow opening—but a vital one.

Organizing Beyond the Courts

Legal resistance was only one part of a much broader civil rights strategy. Activists like Mary Burnett Talbert, W.E.B. Du Bois, and others built a movement focused on both moral persuasion and structural reform. The 1905 Niagara Movement called for full civil rights and educational equality, laying the foundation for the formation of the NAACP in 1909—a multiracial coalition galvanized by the Springfield, Illinois, race riot the year before.

It was no coincidence that journalists like Ida B. Wells and Du Bois were at the heart of the NAACP’s early work. Their publications did more than report—they documented violence, called out injustice, and armed Black communities with information and legal strategies. Du Bois’s The Crisis became a lifeline for spreading awareness and unifying the struggle.

The Role of Government—and the Limits of Justice

The federal government’s commitment to civil rights in the mid-20th century was uneven and often reactive. President Truman’s transformation from segregationist to civil rights advocate was sparked not by abstract principle, but by the brutal case of Sgt. Isaac Woodard, a Black WWII veteran blinded by police in South Carolina. The state refused to prosecute the officers involved, but the injustice spurred Truman to create the President’s Committee on Civil Rights. Its 1947 report, To Secure These Rights, was one of the first formal acknowledgments by the federal government that segregation was incompatible with democratic ideals.

But while commissions made recommendations, it was federal judges and lawyers—many backed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund—who built the case law that would eventually topple Plessy. Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and their legal team refined the argument: not just that segregated schools were unequal, but that segregation itself, regardless of resources, violated the Constitution.

Brown and the Path Forward

When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced the Court’s decision in Brown, it was the culmination of decades of strategic litigation, grassroots advocacy, and intellectual rigor. The ruling declared that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” dismantling the legal justification for racial segregation in public education.

But the road ahead was—and remains—long. Brown did not desegregate schools overnight. In many communities, state and local officials resisted the ruling with tenacity, and new forms of segregation emerged. Today, disparities in school funding, housing patterns, and access to educational opportunity continue to perpetuate inequality—often along racial and socioeconomic lines.

Why Brown Still Matters

The anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education is a reminder that constitutional rights are not self-executing. Legal victories matter—but they are only part of a larger struggle. Brown was possible because ordinary people insisted on being heard, even when the law seemed deaf to their claims. It was the product of legal innovation, community resilience, and a refusal to accept injustice as inevitable.

As we reflect on the legacy of Brown, civil rights lawyers today must carry that legacy forward. In employment law, housing justice, voting rights, and beyond, the fight against systemic discrimination continues. Courts can affirm equality—but it is up to us to make it real.

⸻

Read More:

• Eatmon, Myisha S. “Wielding an Unlikely Weapon: Black Americans, White Violence, and Damage Suits during the Early Days of Jim Crow.” Journal of American History, Vol. 111, No. 2 (Sept. 2024), pp. 267–289.

• Penningroth, Dylan. “How Civil Rights Were Made—and Remade—by Black Communities in the Jim Crow South.” Time. Link

• Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Link

• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Link

• Truman Library, To Secure These Rights. Link

• Washington Post. “How Harry S. Truman Went From Being a Racist to Desegregating the Military.” Link

Federal Court Blocks Biden's Overtime Expansion: What Employers and Workers Need to Know

In a decision affecting millions of American workers, a federal court in Texas has struck down the Biden administration's attempt to expand overtime pay protection. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan, effectively maintains the current salary threshold at which workers become eligible for overtime pay at $35,568 annually, rather than allowing it to increase to nearly $59,000 as the administration had planned.

Understanding Overtime Pay: The Basics

Before delving into the court's decision, it's important to understand how overtime pay works in America. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay most workers time-and-a-half for any hours worked beyond 40 in a week. However, the law includes important exceptions for certain white-collar workers, known as "exemptions."

These exemptions were originally designed to exclude high-level executives, administrators, and professionals from overtime requirements. To be considered exempt from overtime pay, an employee must pass three tests. First, they must be paid a salary rather than an hourly wage. Second, their salary must meet a minimum threshold (currently $35,568 per year). Third, their actual job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional work.

For example, a retail store manager who earns $40,000 annually and spends most of their time supervising employees and managing operations might be exempt from overtime. However, if that same manager spends most of their time stocking shelves or running a cash register, they might not qualify for the exemption despite their title.

The Biden Administration's Attempted Changes

The Department of Labor under President Biden sought to dramatically expand overtime protection by raising the salary threshold in two stages. The first increase, which took effect in July 2024, raised the minimum to $43,888. The second stage would have pushed it to $58,656 in January 2025. The rule also included a provision for automatic increases every three years to keep pace with wage growth.

The administration estimated these changes would have extended overtime protection to roughly 4 million additional salaried workers. For these workers, the change would have meant either additional pay for extra hours worked or a limit on their work weeks to 40 hours.

The Legal Challenge

The lawsuit that stopped the overtime rule was filed by the State of Texas along with a coalition of business groups, including the National Retail Federation. This wasn't a random choice of venue or plaintiffs. Texas and business organizations strategically chose to file in the Eastern District of Texas, a court that had previously struck down a similar Obama-era overtime rule in 2016.

The choice of this particular court reflects a well-established legal strategy. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been receptive to challenges against federal regulations, particularly those involving labor and employment issues. Additionally, cases filed in this district can reach the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has often been skeptical of expansive federal regulatory authority.

The plaintiffs argued that the new rule would create substantial burdens for businesses, potentially forcing them to cut jobs and reduce work schedules. The National Retail Federation, representing one of America's largest employment sectors, claimed the rule would severely limit retailers' ability to offer flexible benefit packages to lower-level exempt employees. They also argued that the increased payroll costs would harm businesses still recovering from the economic impacts of the pandemic.

Texas's involvement as a lead plaintiff was particularly significant. As a state employer, Texas argued it would face millions in additional payroll costs, giving it standing to challenge the rule. This state-level involvement helped transform what might have been seen as primarily a business issue into a question of federal government overreach, a framing that resonated with the court's previous decisions on federal regulatory authority.

The timing of the lawsuit was also strategic. The plaintiffs initially secured a preliminary injunction that blocked the rule from taking effect in Texas just before its July 1 implementation date. This early victory set the stage for the broader challenge that resulted in Judge Jordan's nationwide ruling.

The Court's Decision

Judge Jordan's ruling centered on a fundamental question: Did the Labor Department overstep its authority? The court concluded that it did. The judge found that by setting such a high salary threshold, the Department had effectively created a "salary-only" test for overtime exemption, pushing aside the equally important consideration of an employee's actual job duties.

This isn't the first time such an expansion has been blocked. In 2016, the Obama administration attempted a similar increase, which was stopped by the same court. The current threshold of $35,568 was set during the Trump administration in 2019, marking the first increase since 2004.

What This Means for Workers and Employers

For workers, the immediate impact is clear. Millions who would have gained overtime protection will remain exempt if they meet both the current salary threshold and the duties test. This particularly affects middle-management employees in retail, restaurants, and other service industries who often work well beyond 40 hours per week without additional compensation.

Employers who had already begun implementing changes to comply with the July 2024 threshold face a decision. While they can legally revert to the lower threshold, employment law experts advise careful consideration before reducing any employee's salary or changing their overtime eligibility. Some employers may choose to maintain the higher salaries to retain employees and maintain morale.

It's crucial to note that several states, including California, New York, and Washington, have their own, higher salary thresholds for overtime exemption. Employers in these states must continue to comply with these more stringent requirements regardless of the federal court's decision.

Looking Forward

The Department of Labor has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision. However, this ruling highlights the ongoing tension between efforts to modernize labor standards and concerns about business costs and flexibility. Worker advocacy groups argue that the current threshold is far too low, leaving many modestly paid employees working long hours without extra compensation. Business groups counter that higher thresholds would force them to reduce jobs and limit flexible work arrangements.

For now, employers must continue to navigate the complex requirements of overtime law, ensuring they properly classify employees based on both their salaries and their actual job duties. Workers, meanwhile, should understand their rights under both federal and state law, particularly if they live in states with more protective overtime requirements.

The overtime debate underscores a broader question facing American workplaces: How do we balance fair compensation for workers with the operational needs of businesses? While this court decision provides a clear answer for now, the discussion is far from over.

Expected Changes in Employment Law Under President Trump’s Second Term

As President Donald Trump reclaims the White House, employers and employees alike anticipate significant shifts in labor policies. Based on his previous term and campaign promises, these changes could impact areas such as workplace regulations, immigration, and diversity initiatives.

1. Regulatory Reforms and Agency Leadership

One of the hallmark changes expected involves regulatory slowdowns and a pivot in leadership at key labor agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Under Trump’s administration, agency chairs aligned with pro-business views are likely to oversee policy. This change signals potential reversals of Biden-era regulations on overtime, independent contractor definitions, and more. While some proposed rules from the current administration were met with court challenges, a rollback of these initiatives is probable, resulting in reduced compliance burdens for employers but potentially fewer protections for workers.

2. Influence of Trump-Appointed Judges on Employee Rights

The appointment of federal judges during Trump’s presidency will have long-lasting implications for employment law. These judges, typically aligned with conservative interpretations of statutes, may affect the outcomes of key employment cases. Courts could lean towards stricter interpretations of laws governing collective bargaining, workplace discrimination, and employer liabilities. This could result in a judiciary less receptive to expansive interpretations of worker protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and other regulatory frameworks. Employers might experience a more favorable legal climate, whereas employees may find it harder to win cases involving broad labor rights or discrimination claims.

3. Immigration Policies and Workforce Impacts

Immigration policy will be a central focus, with a renewed emphasis on enforcement through measures like workplace raids and an increase in I-9 audits. The construction, hospitality, and manufacturing sectors, which rely heavily on immigrant labor, may experience workforce disruptions due to stricter regulations and potential deportations. A clampdown on immigration is expected to lead to tighter labor markets, particularly in industries dependent on a diverse workforce.

4. DEI Initiatives Under Scrutiny

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts face new challenges under Trump’s administration. His previous term saw the curtailment of DEI training in federal settings, and similar initiatives might extend to private-sector businesses, especially those connected to federal contracts. The EEOC, under anticipated leadership changes, could narrow the scope of permissible DEI programs, placing certain corporate training initiatives under heightened scrutiny. Such actions could affect how organizations approach inclusion and diversity policies to remain compliant.

5. Worker Rights and Union Relations

Trump’s complex relationship with labor unions and worker rights is set to continue, with potential limitations on union organizing. Policies to make it easier for employers to deter union activities may resurface, reflecting previous administration tactics aimed at reducing collective bargaining power. Conversely, legislative support for voluntary negotiations between employees and employers, as highlighted by proposals like the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, may develop, fostering alternative dialogue frameworks that bypass traditional union channels.

6. Wage Policies and Worker Benefits

President Trump has shown ambivalence toward federal wage increases, having previously supported and then retracted positions on minimum wage hikes. The current landscape suggests that while direct action on wages may be limited, policies affecting tipped wages and overtime pay might emerge. The elimination of taxes on tipped wages is one such proposal, appealing to service industry workers but raising questions about potential revenue impacts on public programs. Proposals for family leave, advocated by figures like Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, may offer targeted benefits for working parents, signaling nuanced shifts toward supportive benefits without comprehensive legislative change.

7. Economic and Industry-Specific Policies

Economic strategies under Trump’s presidency are likely to prioritize domestic job creation through tariffs and fossil fuel initiatives. A proposed blanket tariff on imports aims to boost American manufacturing but poses risks of supply chain disruptions and cost increases. Sectors tied to renewable energy may also feel the strain as federal focus shifts toward traditional energy sources like oil and coal.

Conclusion

President Trump’s second term presents an employment landscape marked by pro-business reforms, a tougher stance on immigration, reevaluated DEI programs, and selective economic policies. While some measures may simplify regulatory compliance for employers, they also pose challenges, including potential workforce shortages and heightened scrutiny over diversity initiatives. Both employers and employees will need to stay vigilant and adaptable as these anticipated changes unfold, shaping the next phase of workplace dynamics in the United States.

Companies Continue to Illegally Require Employees to Be 100% Healed Before Returning to Work

I continue to be surprised by the number of companies that refuse to accommodate workers who have disabilities or who are returning from medical leave. Requiring an employee to be “100% healed” with no medical restrictions is nearly always a violation of the the ADA.

EEOC Sues FedEx For Disability Discrimination

The Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), a global shipping and logistics company, violated federal law when it failed to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified, disabled ramp transport drivers with medical restrictions, and instead forced them to take unpaid leave or fired them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

— EEOC Release

EEOC Sued for Employment Discrimination

In a striking turn of events, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finds itself on the receiving end of a discrimination lawsuit. An employee with 24 years of service has filed a complaint against the agency, alleging violations of the very law it is tasked to enforce - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case, Kandan v. Burrows, EEOC, was filed in the Eastern District of Lousiana on August 26th. The Complaint alleges discrimination based on gender, race and national origin.

This case is particularly noteworthy given the EEOC's role as the federal agency responsible for enforcing civil rights laws in the workplace. It underscores that no organization is immune to allegations of discrimination and highlights the importance of fair and transparent promotion practices.

10,000 workers at 25 U.S. hotels were on strike Monday. More could be joining them.

One of the worst side effects of the Covid times has been companies attempting to continue to do with less paying work for workers even after the economy came back online.

From AP via ABC:

“Some 10,000 hotel workers represented by UNITE HERE union union walked off the job Sunday at 24 hotels in eight cities, including Honolulu, Boston, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego and Seattle. They remained on strike Monday, and hotel workers in other cities could join in the coming days as contract talks stall over demands for higher wages and a reversal of service and staffing cuts.”

7th Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict Against Walmart for Discrimination Against Worker with Down Syndrome

The Seventh Circuit Court of appeals rejected Walmart’s appeal, holding that the “jury heard sufficient evidence to find Walmart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it changed its scheduling policy and failed to accommodate an employee with Down syndrome who had difficulty adapting to her new hours, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Aug. 27. (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.)” Read opinion here.

“The employee, a sales associate in Wisconsin for more than 15 years, worked an afternoon shift so she could catch a bus to and from work, according to court documents. After she was given an adjusted, slightly later shift, she repeatedly expressed confusion and asked for her old shift back, the documents said. She also often left early — the same time as before to catch her bus — or missed work altogether. After multiple absences and coaching, Walmart fired her.” — via HRDive

The jury awarded $125 Million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $300,000 by statutory caps.

Walmart's $44M Settlement: A Win for Employee Rights in COVID-19 Workplace Measures

In a significant victory for workers' rights, Walmart has agreed to a $44 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit concerning uncompensated time for mandatory COVID-19 screenings. This case highlights crucial issues in wage and hour law, particularly in the context of pandemic-related workplace safety measures.

The Lawsuit and Its Implications

The lawsuit, filed in November 2020, alleged that Walmart violated California labor laws by failing to compensate employees for time spent on mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. These screenings, which included temperature checks and health questionnaires, added several minutes of unpaid time to employees' workdays.

This case underscores a critical principle in employment law: time spent on mandatory work-related activities should be compensable. The settlement serves as a reminder that employers must carefully consider whether health and safety measures constitute work time under applicable laws.

Settlement Details and Employee Impact

The $44 million settlement will benefit over 250,000 current and former Walmart employees in California. While Walmart has not admitted wrongdoing, this resolution avoids protracted litigation and sets a notable precedent for similar cases.

For affected employees, this settlement not only provides financial compensation but also validates their right to be paid for all work-related activities, including those implemented for workplace safety during extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic.

Legal Implications and Future Considerations

This case exemplifies the importance of collective action in addressing workplace issues. It demonstrates how class-action lawsuits can effectively challenge large corporations and enforce labor laws on a broad scale.

The settlement raises important questions for both employees and employers:

1. What constitutes compensable work time, especially in the context of health and safety measures?

2. How should employers implement necessary safety protocols while ensuring compliance with wage and hour laws?

3. What rights do employees have regarding compensation for time spent on mandatory workplace activities outside of regular duties?

Moving Forward: Advice for Employees and Their Representatives

1. Stay Informed: Employees should familiarize themselves with their rights under federal and state labor laws, particularly regarding compensable time.

2. Document Time: Keep detailed records of all time spent on work-related activities, including health screenings or other mandatory procedures.

3. Communicate Concerns: If you believe you're not being compensated fairly, raise the issue with your employer or HR department.

4. Seek Legal Advice: If concerns persist, consult with an employment law attorney to understand your options.

5. Consider Collective Action: This case demonstrates the power of collective legal action in addressing systemic workplace issues.

For employment lawyers, this case emphasizes the need to stay vigilant about emerging workplace practices, especially those arising from extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. It also highlights the potential for class-action lawsuits to effect significant change in employment practices.

This settlement serves as a reminder that even as workplace norms evolve, the fundamental principles of fair compensation and adherence to labor laws remain paramount. It underscores the ongoing need for robust legal representation to protect and advance employee rights in an ever-changing work environment.