Handsome Brook Farms Issues Recall of Kirkland Signature Organic Pasture Raised 24-Count Eggs Because of Possible Health Risk

Handsome Brook Farms is voluntarily recalling 10,800 retail units of the Organic Pasture Raised 24-Count Eggs sold under the Kirkland Signature brand name because these eggs have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in

Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts

Correction Notice: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Laboratory Error Incorrectly Resulted in Recall of Church Brothers Farms Green Onions – Recall Rescinded-

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has determined that a laboratory error incorrectly caused the October 18, 2024 recall announcement concerning Church Brothers Farms’ Green Onions. The products from Church Brothers did not contain Salmonella and the recall has been rescinded.

Source: FDA Food Safety Recalls RSS Feed

transgender workers

Protections for Transgender Workers Are at Risk

As an employment discrimination lawyer, I’ve spent years fighting for the rights of marginalized workers, including the LGBTQ+ community. So, when I heard about Texas’s lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding transgender workers’ rights, I was not surprised, but disappointed. It’s yet another move by the conservative right to delegitimize the trans identity and the trans experience. 

transgender workers

If you’re unfamiliar with the case, in April of this year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, challenged federal guidance issued by the EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the EEOC’s guidance interprets Title VII to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including protections for transgender employees. 

Its updated 2024 guidelines aim to more clearly define harassment in the workplace for transgender workers and their rights. They state that it is considered unlawful workplace harassment when an employer denies accommodation to an employee based on gender identity. These violations could look like 

  • Repeatedly refusing to use or purposefully mistaking a person’s pronouns; 
  • Banning an employee from using the bathroom of their gender identity, and 
  • Harassing someone for not presenting themselves in a manner that is stereotypically associated with that person’s sex. 

Two weeks after the guidance was published, 18 states, led by Tennessee, filed lawsuits against the EEOC, stating that the commission has no authority to make these kinds of amendments because they were not approved by Congress.  

One week after Tennessee sued the EEOC, Texas AG Ken Paxton joined the party with very similar reasons to the other states but also citing a violation of state sovereignty. In the suit, Texas cited multiple previous decisions that support their move for dismissing the guidance. 

Background: The Bostock Decision and 2021 Guidance 

To understand the stakes, it’s important to go back to 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that decision, the Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination extends to sexual orientation and gender identity. In other words, it’s illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay or transgender. This was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights, but the decision didn’t cover every issue that might come up in the workplace. 

In fact, what Paxton and his legal team have jumped on is that the Court specifically decided not to make any rulings about policies relating to bathrooms, dress code or pronouns. 

That’s where the EEOC’s 2021 guidance comes in. Following the Bostock ruling, the EEOC expanded on what workplace protections should look like for transgender employees, very similar to their guidance in 2024. Ken Paxton and his team filed suit for this one as well and, more importantly, won their case. Again, not surprised, but disappointed given that the judge of the case was handpicked by Donald Trump.  

What is important to grasp is that the dismissal of the 2021 Guidance has grave implications for the most recent lawsuit. The Texas Attorney General is bringing this case to the same court that already threw out similar EEOC guidance two years ago, so there’s a good chance the court might strike down the guidance again. And under the new Trump administration, which has openly opposed expanding trans rights, who knows what could happen. They could even go as far as issuing a nationwide order to stop the enforcement of gender identity rules altogether. 

The Human Impact 

Of course, it’s still hard to say how it will play out. But one thing is clear: this case could have wide-reaching implications for the rights of transgender employees across the country. 

As a lawyer representing employees who face discrimination, I see the real-world effects of these legal battles. Discrimination isn’t an abstract concept, it’s something that affects people’s everyday lives, livelihoods, and mental health. Transgender employees already face higher rates of workplace discrimination, harassment, and job loss compared to their cisgender counterparts. 

Lawsuits like this one from Texas send a dangerous message: that it’s acceptable to deny transgender individuals their basic rights in the workplace. It’s a move that could lead to increased stigmatization and discrimination, especially in states that are more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. 

It’s not about convenience or personal preferences of employers or co-workers; it’s about ensuring that transgender employees are treated with dignity and respect, just like anyone else. When states push back against protections like those in the EEOC’s guidance, they’re effectively saying that transgender employees don’t deserve the same level of respect and fairness as everyone else. 

In the end, this is more than just a legal fight—it’s about standing up for the basic human rights of transgender employees. And as long as states and employers continue to challenge those rights, lawyers like me will keep fighting back. 

If you believe you are a victim of discrimination or harassment at work, contact the lawyers at Carter Law Group to fight for you and your rights. Call us today or submit a questionnaire to begin your consultation. 

Want to read more from Carter Law Group?

Read more

Sugar Foods Recalls Fresh Gourmet Tortilla Strips Santa Fe Style 3.5 Ounce Pouch Due to Undeclared Wheat

Sugar Foods is recalling 3.5 ounce pouches of Fresh Gourmet Tortilla Strips Santa Fe Style with UPC Code 7 87359 17504 6 and Best By Date June 20, 2025 due to a contamination of undeclared wheat allergen.

Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts

Gaines Pet Treats LLC Voluntarily Recalls “Gaines Family Farmstead Chicken Chips for Dogs” Due to Possible Salmonella Contamination

Gaines Pet Treats LLC, of Birmingham, AL is voluntarily recalling 204, 5-ounce bags of "Gaines Family Farmstead Chicken Chips" treats for dogs due to the possibility of Salmonella contamination.

Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts

Carolina Prime Pet, Inc. Recalls “Hollywood Feed Carolina Made Chicken Chips” Because of Possible Salmonella Health Risk

Carolina Prime Pet, Inc. of Lenoir, NC, is recalling 400 16-ounce bags of "Hollywood Feed Carolina Made Chicken Chips" treats for dogs because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts

Grimmway Farms Expands Recall to Include Additional Bag Sizes Due to Potential E. coli Contamination

Grimmway Farms announced the addition of four bag sizes of organic whole carrots to its November 16, 2024, recall. All dates associated with the recall remain unchanged.

Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts

F&S Fresh Foods Recalls Whole Foods Market Organic Carrot Sticks and Organic Carrots & Celery Because of Possible Health Risk Due to Potential E. coli Contamination

F&S Fresh Foods, Sacramento, CA is recalling Whole Foods Market 15 oz. Organic Carrot Sticks and Whole Foods Market 15 oz. Organic Carrots & Celery that should no longer be in stores but may be in
consumers’ refrigerators or freezers.

Source: FDA Food Safety Recalls RSS Feed

Babcock Dairy Expands Recall on Orange Custard Chocolate Chip and Chocolate Peanut Butter Due to Undeclared Egg

Babcock Dairy of Madison, Wisconsin, is voluntarily expanding its recall on Orange Custard Chocolate Chip ice cream that may be labeled as Chocolate Peanut Butter. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume t

Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts

overtime pay

Expecting Overtime Pay in the New Year? Think Again.

overtime pay
The fight for fair overtime pay has taken a disappointing turn, leaving millions of workers and employers in limbo. Just months after new regulations promised to raise the salary threshold for overtime eligibility—a move hailed as a major win for American workers—a federal judge in Texas has thrown a wrench into the plan.  

On November 15, 2024, Judge Sean Jordan struck down the Department of Labor’s (DOL) updated rules, arguing that they overstepped authority by prioritizing salary levels over job duties. The decision not only halts a planned increase in January 2025 but also rolls back changes already implemented in July 2024. As a result, businesses nationwide are scrambling to adjust, with tough decisions ahead about how to navigate the fallout. 

If you’re a salaried worker in the U.S. making between $35,568 to $58,656 a year ($684-$1,128 per week), you may have just lost your overtime for the New Year.  

How Do I Know If I’m Affected? 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets rules for who qualifies for overtime pay—typically, time-and-a-half for any hours worked over 40 per week. For most hourly workers, the rule is straightforward: work extra, get extra. But salaried employees? It’s not that simple. 

The DOL says that if you’re an executive, administrator, or professional meeting specific criteria, you qualify for the “white-collar exemption” and do not receive overtime pay. To figure out if you’re in that group, there’s a three-prong test: 

  1. You’re paid on a salary basis: Your paycheck is the same no matter how many hours you work. 
  1. Your job duties meet exemption standards: Think managers, high-level decision-makers, and specialized professionals like doctors or lawyers. 
  1. You earn more than a specific salary threshold: This is the hotly debated number. 

In 2019, the threshold was set at $35,568 per year (roughly $684 per week, or about $17/hour). If you made less than this, you did not meet the “white-collar exemption and were entitled to overtime pay. But what happens when the cost of living goes up, and that threshold doesn’t? 

The DOL’s Push to Expand Overtime  

In April 2024, the DOL decided it was time for a change. They announced plans to raise the salary threshold in two steps: 

  • July 1, 2024: $43,888 annually 
  • January 1, 2025: $58,656 annually 

These changes were set to make millions of workers eligible for overtime pay—an estimated 4 million nationwide. The DOL also wanted to avoid this back-and-forth debate by introducing automatic updates every three years. 

For many, this was a win. Workers earning between $35,568 and $58,656 would no longer be exempt, meaning they could finally claim overtime pay for those grueling 50- or 60-hour workweeks. Employers? Well, they’d have to make adjustments—either paying overtime, raising salaries above the new threshold, or cutting back on hours to dodge extra costs. 

Texas Sues the DOL 

Just as workers were adjusting to the $43,888 threshold, the regulations hit a major roadblock. On November 15, 2024, a federal judge in Texas, Judge Sean Jordan ruled in favor of Texas in a lawsuit and struck those regulations down. 

He found that the DOL did not have the authority to make these changes. He believed that focusing so heavily on salary thresholds ignored the job responsibilities that define whether someone is truly “exempt.”  

The ruling rescinded both the July 2024 increase and the planned January 2025 bump. Overnight, not only Texas workers, who thought they were finally eligible for overtime, but also millions of workers nationwide lost that eligibility. 

What Happens Now? 

With the judge’s ruling, the overtime threshold reverts to the 2019 level: $35,568. Employers and employees alike are left scrambling to figure out what this means. 

Some employers might start requiring salaried workers to track their hours, a move that could feel frustrating to professionals who’ve enjoyed flexibility. Others might cut salaries or restructure job roles to maintain their bottom lines. Without the higher thresholds, many are expecting to go back to long hours without extra pay 

Of course, the DOL could appeal Judge Jordan’s ruling. But the clock is ticking. There may not be enough time for the appeal to be heard before Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025. And it’s unlikely his administration will push for a higher threshold. After all, Trump’s previous DOL settled on a threshold that was far below Obama’s proposal. 

What Should Workers and Employers Do? 

For workers: Know your rights. If your salary falls below the $35,568 threshold, you’re entitled to overtime pay, regardless of your job title. Keep an eye on legal updates—obviously, things can change quickly. 

For employers: Plan ahead. Even if the threshold increase is on hold for now, it’s clear that changes to overtime rules are a priority for many policymakers. Proactively evaluating roles, salaries, and workloads can help you stay ahead of the curve. 

Get Legal Help 

From a legal standpoint, this change, while disheartening, is not surprising. Employment discrimination lawyers have a key role in ensuring that all employees, especially the most vulnerable, are treated fairly as businesses adapt to these changes. Denying overtime privileges can be a form of discrimination in certain circumstances. If you believe you have been discriminated against at work, contact Carter Law Group or fill out our questionnaire 

 
[/av_textblock]

Uterine Cancer & Hair Straighteners | Carter Law Group
Uterine Cancer & Hair Straighteners | Carter Law Group