#WorkforceWednesday: Can the President Fire NLRB Members Without Cause? SCOTUS May Decide

Employment Law This Week Podcast

With presidential power over independent federal agencies entering uncharted territory, SCOTUS may soon revisit its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which limits a president’s ability to fire members of independent federal agencies—such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—without cause. SCOTUS could choose to:

• reaffirm Humphrey’s Executor,
• overturn the case entirely (potentially politicizing agency functions), or
• define “for cause” and allow terminations only under stringent circumstances.

Former Acting Attorney General of the United States and Epstein Becker Green attorney Stuart Gerson explores how a shift in this precedent could impact employers, industries, and the balance of federal power.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw386

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.