By Samantha Halem, Tavish Brown August 22, 2024
On August 20, 2024, the Federal District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its anticipated final order in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, concerning the lawfulness of the FTC’s non-compete ban. The order concluded that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the ban. As such, the court “set aside” the non-compete ban, holding that the ban “shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on its effective date of September 4, 2024, or thereafter.”[1]
The order has nationwide effect. Thus, unless the order is vacated on appeal (if appealed), employers in any jurisdiction do not have to comply with the ban. The FTC has thirty days to appeal the order.
The bottom line: the FTC’s non-compete ban will not go into effect on September 4th, if at all.
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein will continue to monitor the matter for developments. In the interim, employers may continue to utilize non-compete agreements with employees to the extent permitted under other applicable federal and state laws.
Questions?
For any questions about compliance with laws concerning non-compete agreements or other restrictive covenants, do not hesitate to reach out to the lawyers below or any other member of the Hirsch Roberts Weinstein team.
To sign up for our Client Alerts, click here.
[1] For a refresher on the FTC’s non-compete ban, please review Hirsch Roberts Weinstein’s client alert regarding the ban here.
By Samantha Halem, Julia Russo, Sarah Ruter, Catherine Reuben, Alicia Ward August 13, 2024
On July 31, 2024, Massachusetts joined multiple other states that have enacted pay transparency laws when Governor Healey signed House Bill 4890 (Chapter 141 of the Acts of 2024) which will require Massachusetts employers to disclose certain salary information to employees, applicants, and the Commonwealth. Called the “Francis Perkins Pay Equity Act,” (FPPEA) the new law adds two new sections to the Commonwealth’s wage and hour laws, mandating compensation-related disclosures and reporting requirements. Specifically, employers with 25 or more employees will now have to disclose salary ranges to employees and applicants, and employers with 100 or more employees in Massachusetts will have additional reporting requirements.
The wave of salary transparency laws that has swept across the country in the last few years is intended to be an important step toward closing wage gaps and ensuring pay equity. In enacting FPPEA, Massachusetts joins numerous jurisdictions such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington as well as eight cities/counties (Cincinnati, OH, Toledo, OH, Jersey City, NJ, Ithaca, NY, New York City, NY, Albany and Westchester counties), which have already passed similar variations of pay transparency laws. Even Congress has begun to broach the topic, with a federal salary transparency legislative initiative that was introduced in 2023.
As discussed further below, FPPEA has two main components: (1) pay range disclosure requirements and (2) reporting requirements.
(1) Pay Range Disclosure Requirements
Effective October 29, 2025, employers with 25 or more employees in Massachusetts will be required to disclose pay ranges on three occasions:
“Pay range” is defined as “the annual salary range or hourly wage range that the covered employer reasonably and in good faith expects to pay for such position at that time.” According to that definition and unlike some other jurisdictions, an employer’s disclosures do not need to include additional compensation information, such as bonuses, commissions, or benefits.
(2) Reporting Requirements
Employers with 100 or more employees in Massachusetts, that are already legally required to submit federal wage data reports (EEO-1, EEO-3, EEO-4 or EEO-5), must now additionally submit these reports to the Commonwealth, which will aggregate and publish the data by industry. Individual employer EEO reports are not considered “public records” subject to disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, but employers should note that such records may still be subject to discovery production in litigation. Private employers must provide this information annually, while unions, state and local governments, and elementary and secondary school systems must submit their reports every other year. The first EEO-1 reports will be due by February 1, 2025.
Enforcement
The Massachusetts Attorney General has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce FPPEA by seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. Unlike some of the pay transparency statutes in other states, there is no private right of action for employees or applicants. Covered employers that violate FPPEA will be subject to a warning for the first offense, and, for the first two years after enactment, will be provided with an opportunity to cure a violation. Thereafter, the law carries progressive fines for any further violations, including:
Importantly, violations are specifically not subject to treble damages under the Massachusetts Wage Act.
Six months after the law is enacted, the Attorney General is required to mount a public awareness campaign to educate employers about the new law.
Intersection with MEPA
Notably, this law buttresses the Commonwealth’s previously enacted legislation aimed to achieve pay equalization, the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA). In 1945, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to pass such a law. Employers will remember that the 2018 amendments to MEPA contained an affirmative defense provision designed to proactively eliminate the wage gap. Specifically, employers will not be liable under MEPA if they can show that they conducted a good faith, reasonable self-evaluation of their pay practices within the last three years. In the lead-up to FPPEA’s effective date, we recommend that employers who have not conducted a MEPA pay audit in the last three years do so now. It has the double benefit of assessing whether pay ranges are up to date for compliance with FPPEA, while providing an affirmative defense under MEPA.
This recent legal development in Massachusetts evidences the growing national trend of pay transparency, and we anticipate that the list of participating states will not end here. Multi-state employers, or those with a full or partially remote workforce, must ensure that job postings comply with numerous state requirements within which the employer recruits or retains employees. HRW is available to assist employers with crafting job postings that comply with not only Massachusetts but all the various new state/local salary transparency laws.
Takeaways
Employers have less than a year to develop a strategy to comply with the Commonwealth’s new pay transparency requirements and their impact on the workplace. To that end, employers should:
Questions/Compliance Assistance
If you have any questions about the above new developments or any other compliance issue, do
not hesitate to reach out to the lawyers below or any other member of our team.
To sign up for our Client Alerts, click here.
By Samantha Halem, David Wilson, Tavish Brown, John Arnold August 8, 2024
This alert provides important information for employers concerning the noncompetition agreement ban by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024, as well as a summary of a recent and surprising decision from the Massachusetts Superior Court concerning the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (MNAA).
Federal Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions on FTC’s Noncompetition Agreement Ban[1]
On July 3, 2024, the Federal District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued a decision in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, which preliminarily enjoined the FTC from enforcing the rule against the particular plaintiff. However, the court did not issue a nationwide injunction. Based on this preliminary decision, it appeared unlikely that the FTC’s rule would survive the constitutional challenge. The court is expected to issue a final decision on or before August 30, 2024.
Then, on July 23, 2024, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a request for a preliminary injunction in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, issuing a ruling that directly conflicts with Ryan, LLC, finding that the final rule is likely to survive legal challenge.
These conflicting decisions create uncertainty about the fate of the FTC’s noncompetition agreement ban, which is scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024, unless a nationwide injunction is issued.
Why Are They Conflicting?
The principal disagreement between the Ryan, LLC and ATS Tree courts concerns the “text, history, and structure” of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA). Specifically, the question is whether Section 6(g) of the FTCA authorizes the FTC to issue “substantive” rules concerning “unfair methods of competition”.
There are also considerable questions about whether the regulation will survive the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which, as articulated in the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, requires agencies to point to “clear congressional authorization” to, among other things, regulate issues of “vast economic and political significance.”[2]
What Should Employers Do Now?
Unfortunately, the recent federal court decisions do not provide the clarity that we had hoped for regarding how employers should address their existing noncompetition agreements. Most immediately, the FTC’s noncompetition agreement ban requires employers to send notices to workers on or before September 4, 2024, who are bound by a noncompetition agreement stating that the agreements are void. While failure to send a notice is a violation of the rule, there is no private right of action under the FTCA. As such, only the FTC can enforce the noncompetition agreement ban. Additionally, the final rule provides that it is not an unfair method of competition to “enforce or attempt to enforce” a noncompetition agreement clause or to “make representations” about a noncompetition agreement clause where a person has a good-faith basis to believe that the rule is inapplicable. So, employers may be able to rely on decisions finding the final rule is unconstitutional as a defense to potential enforcement actions.
Regardless of the fate of the FTC’s noncompetition agreement ban, the final rule is consistent with a continuing legislative trend restricting the enforceability of noncompetition agreements and related restrictive covenants. Considering these trends, employers should take steps now to secure their legitimate business interests, including trade secrets, confidential information, and goodwill, by:
Massachusetts Superior Court Issues Important Decision Interpreting the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act
On July 17, 2024, a Massachusetts Superior Court issued a surprising and potentially impactful decision in Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc. regarding forfeiture for competition agreements, nonsolicitation agreements, and certain noncompetition agreements in separation agreements, among other post-employment restrictive covenants.
MNAA Refresher
The MNAA provides that noncompetition agreements are valid and enforceable only when they strictly comply with statutory requirements.
Among other things, an enforceable agreement must: (1) comply with specific notice requirements, including explicitly stating in the agreement that the employee has the “right” to consult with counsel before executing; (2) be supported by consideration independent from continued employment (if entered into after commencement of employment); (3) be no broader than necessary to protect legitimate business interests (i.e., trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill); (4) avoid restricting activities for more than one year following employment (absent unique circumstances); (5) be reasonable in geographic reach in relation to the interests protect (as defined); (6) be reasonable in scope of proscribed activities in relation to the interest protected (as defined); (7) specify in the agreement the consideration that is supporting the noncompetition agreement; and (8) be “consonant” with public policy.
For a detailed review of the MNAA’s requirements, please refer to HRW’s past alerts here and here.[3]
What does the MNAA Say About Forfeiture for Competition Agreements?
Relevant to Miele, the MNAA defines “noncompetition agreements” to include “forfeiture for competition agreements,” but not to include certain other restrictive covenants, including nonsolicitation agreements and noncompetition agreements in separation agreements. Under the MNAA, a “forfeiture for competition” agreement is defined as an agreement that, by its terms or through the way it is enforced, “imposes adverse financial consequences” on a former employee for engaging in “competitive activities” after their employment.
After the passage of the MNAA in 2018, it was commonly understood that nonsolicitation agreements, separation agreements, and other restrictive covenants explicitly excluded from the definition of a “noncompetition agreement” did not need to comply with the MNAA. As discussed, Miele appears to change that understanding.
Miele v. Foundation Medicine
Susan Miele was the former head of human resources for Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI). When she joined FMI in 2017, Miele entered into a nonsolicitation agreement with FMI that prohibited her from soliciting employees of FMI for one year following the end of her employment.
When FMI terminated Miele’s employment in 2020, the parties entered into a Transition Agreement where Miele agreed to remain with FMI for a set transition period in exchange for increased compensation and equity benefits. The Transition Agreement “reaffirmed” the 2017 agreement and provided that if Miele violated the nonsolicitation agreement, she would have to return the benefits received under the Transition Agreement and FMI would be permitted to withhold benefits not yet paid.
After the transition period ended, Miele allegedly solicited several FMI employees on behalf of FMI’s competitor. FMI responded by halting benefits to Miele under the Transition Agreement and litigation ensued. After discovery, both parties moved for judgment on their claims.
What Did the Miele Court Say?
The relevant issues before the court were: (1) whether the “reaffirmation” of the 2017 agreement in 2020 brought that agreement within the ambit of the MNAA;[4] (2) whether the Transition Agreement was a new agreement; and (3) whether the Transition Agreement was a “forfeiture for competition agreement” as defined by the MNAA and, if so, whether it complied with the MNAA.
With respect to the forfeiture questions, the court concluded that because the Transition Agreement contained new terms and provided new benefits to Miele, it constituted a new nonsolicitation agreement that had to comply with the MNAA but did not, and, therefore, was unenforceable.
In considering these questions, the court observed that the MNAA defines “noncompetition agreements” to include “forfeiture for competition agreements,” but excludes nonsolicitation agreements and noncompete agreements in applicable separation agreements from the definition of “noncompetition agreement.” Thus, because a nonsolicitation agreement with a forfeiture provision meets the definition of “forfeiture for competition agreement,” the plain language of the MNAA creates an inherent contradiction where such a nonsolicitation agreement is both included and excluded from the definition of a noncompete agreement. To resolve this contradiction, the Miele Court noted that courts must read statutes in harmony and not to create internal contradictions. Thus, the Court concluded that the legislature must have intended to only exclude nonsolicitation agreements and other restrictive covenants from the definition of noncompetition agreements if they do not contain forfeiture provisions.
In short, under the Miele decision, if a restrictive covenant requires an employee to forfeit benefits received for engaging in competitive activities, it is deemed to be a noncompetition agreement under the MNAA, regardless of the MNAA language excluding certain restrictive covenants, such as nonsolicitations, from the definition of a noncompetition agreement.
Miele Takeaway(s)
Moving forward, employers who wish to include a forfeiture provision in a restrictive covenant agreement should be prepared for a Court to conclude that the MNAA applies, regardless of the nature of the restrictive covenant.
Miele is not all bad news for employers. The discussion regarding the retroactivity of the MNAA is the first of its kind and is important to any employer with pre-MNAA noncompetition agreements. Additionally, in the decision, the court rejected Miele’s argument that she had not materially breached her nonsolicitation agreement because the individuals she allegedly solicited were low-to-mid-level employees and, according to Miele, FMI did not have a legitimate business interest in protecting goodwill associated with those employees. In rejecting that argument, Miele reaffirms goodwill as a legitimate business interest at a time that courts and administrative agencies are increasingly questioning whether goodwill should receive the same degree of protection as trade secrets and confidential information.
Next Steps
Employers should immediately review all restrictive covenants with Massachusetts residents to determine if the agreements comply with the MNAA. Moving forward, to avoid legal challenges, employers should take care to ensure that any restrictive covenant including a forfeiture provision complies with the MNAA.
Questions?
If you have any questions about the above new developments or any other compliance issue, do not hesitate to reach out to the lawyers below or any other member of our team.
[1] For a refresher on the FTC’s final rule and what employers must do to comply should it go into effect, please review Hirsch Roberts Weinstein’s client alert discussing the regulation here.
[2]According to the FTC, approximately 30 million workers are bound by noncompetition agreements.
[3]Please note past alerts do not reflect developments in the law since they were published and are being provided for background purposes only. Please consult with counsel regarding any questions about compliance with the MNAA.
[4]The MNAA does not apply to noncompetition agreement agreements entered before October 1, 2018. Miele’s 2017 agreement did not comply with the MNAA, so, if the reaffirmation brought the agreement within the bounds of the MNAA, the 2017 agreement would be void and Miele would have prevailed on the related claims. The Miele Court concluded that the MNAA is not retroactive and, therefore, the “reaffirmation” did not affect FMI’s ability to seek damages arising from any breaches of the 2017 agreement.
To sign up for our Client Alerts, click here.
By Samantha Halem, Alicia Ward, Catherine Reuben, Sarah Ruter, Julia Russo July 19, 2024
As of July 1st, several new employment laws went into effect, impacting workplaces across the country on the federal, state, and local levels. That’s right, your summer reading list just got infinitely more exciting. But before you roll up those beach towels and put those beers back into the cooler, fear not. We at Hirsch Roberts Weinstein have put together this summary which highlights some of the new laws and their impact. Here’s what you need to know:
Federal
July 1st marked the start of the first phase of the new federal overtime rule, which introduces several key changes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Most notably, the standard salary threshold for exemption from overtime increased from $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). This threshold will further increase on January 1, 2025 to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually).
For highly compensated employees, the total annual compensation requirement was raised from $107,432 to $132,964. This number is set to increase on January 1, 2025 to $151,164.
Employers should review their employee classifications to confirm compliance with these new thresholds. For more information, here is a link to our Client Alert on this subject.
State
California:
Employers in the Golden State may need to prepare to dish out a little more as minimum wage rates are set to increase on July 1st in many California cities and counties, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Make sure to check your area for compliance.
In addition, July 1st marks the implementation of new workplace violence regulations for almost all non-healthcare employers. These regulations mandate comprehensive measures for employers to prevent and respond to workplace violence, such as the development and implementation of a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan, employee training, and maintaining a five-year incident log. There are some exceptions to this new requirement, so please reach out to determine if your organization is affected.
Colorado:
July 1st marks the implementation of the Job Application Fairness Act in Colorado (JAFA). JAFA prohibits employers from seeking any information that might reveal a job applicant’s age during the initial hiring process. This includes inquiries about dates of attendance or graduation from educational institutions. Employers should review interview questions, employment applications, existing requisitions and job postings, and general hiring procedures for compliance with these new requirements. Other states such as Massachusetts do not specifically prohibit asking about graduation date, but doing so could be evidence that age was a factor in the hiring decision.
Connecticut:
Connecticut’s law that required employers to provide voting leave (up to two hours of unpaid time off on election days) ended July 1st, meaning that Connecticut employers are no longer expected to offer this leave. Voting leave requirements vary in other states. For example, in Massachusetts, employees in certain industries must be given time to vote within the first two hours the polls are open. They must request the time in advance, and it does not have to be paid.
District of Columbia:
An amendment to the Wage Transparency Act of 2014 took effect June 30th, requiring private employers to include minimum and maximum projected salary or hourly pay information in job postings. Employers also cannot prevent employees from discussing their wages with others or discipline employees who inquire about or discuss wages. The amendment further prohibits employers from screening prospective employees based on their wage history or seeking their wage history.
Employers with employees in multiple jurisdictions will remember that this is a growing national trend. We are available to help employers craft job postings that comply with all the various new state/local salary transparency laws.
Florida:
Things are heating up in Florida as well with the implementation of new state laws blocking certain local jurisdiction workplace rules, including those related to heat safety protocols and predictive scheduling. Employers should now instead look to the federal law requirements rather than state or local guidelines in these areas.
Starting July 1st, changes to Florida’s Child Labor Law take effect easing some of the restriction on working minors. The law allows minors aged sixteen and seventeen to work more hours and gives parents and school superintendents the ability to waive the limitation on minors working to only thirty hours a week while school is in session.
Idaho:
Effective July 1st, Idaho employers are immune from civil damages for allowing or not prohibiting the lawful carrying of a firearm on an employee’s person on the employer’s business premises.
Indiana:
Effective July 1st, Indiana employers with 50 or more full-time employees must display a workplace poster outlining veterans’ benefits and services. The poster can be found here.
Maryland:
Maryland amended its Clean Indoor Air Act to prohibit vaping in indoor places of employment, requiring employers to post “No Smoking or Vaping” signs at each entrance to the workplace open to the public. The law, which took effect July 1st, defines vaping as the use of an electronic smoking device or any device where the user inhales tobacco, cannabis, or hemp. Employers with physical locations in Maryland should review applicable handbooks and policies to align with this development.
Nevada:
Minimum wage rates in Nevada increased to $12 an hour on July 1st. Additionally, employers no longer have the option of paying $1 less per hour for providing qualifying health benefits.
South Dakota:
Employers are neither required to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace, nor are they prohibited from taking adverse employment action based solely on a positive test result for cannabis metabolites, for “safety-sensitive” positions, like pilots and constructions workers.
Local
Chicago:
On July 1st, Chicago implemented new sick leave and paid leave regulations under the Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance. A copy of the new regulations can be found here. These regulations require employers to provide up to 40 hours of paid leave for any reason and an additional 40 hours of paid sick leave per 12-month period. Employees accrue both types of leave at a rate of at least one hour for every 35 hours worked. Employees in the City of Chicago are specifically exempted from Illinois and Cook County “paid leave for any reason” requirements since they are covered by the new Chicago ordinance.[1]
Chicago has also raised its minimum wage effective July 1st to $16.20 per hour.
Chicago employers should also update their required notices effective July 1st.
All employees must be given the following additional notices as indicated:
New York City:
Employers in the Big Apple had until July 1st to provide a copy of the multilingual “Know Your Rights at Work” poster to all employees. Additionally, the poster must also:
The poster educates employees on their rights and protections under federal, state, and local laws, as well as their right to form a union. A copy of the poster can be found here: Know Your Rights. Covered employers who have not met the July 1st deadline should promptly comply with the notice requirement and add the poster to existing physical and electronic workplace bulletin platforms.
Questions?
If you have any questions about the above new developments or any other compliance issue, do not hesitate to reach out to the lawyers below or any other member of our team.
[1] Employees outside the City of Chicago but still in Cook County, Illinois are entitled to leave under the Cook County Paid Leave Ordinance, which converted from an earned sick leave law to a “paid leave for any reason” law on January 1, 2024. Employees outside Cook County are entitled to paid leave for any reason under the Illinois Paid Leave for All Workers Act.
To sign up for our Client Alerts, click here.
By Samantha Halem, Alicia Ward July 10, 2024
On April 15, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a final rule
(the “Final Rule”) to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which took effect on
June 18, 2024. The PWFA requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations to a
qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the employer’s
business operations.
The Final Rule specifies that “limitation” means a physical or mental condition related to, affected
by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The physical or mental
condition must be “related to, affected by, or arising out of” pregnancy, childbirth, or related
medical conditions. According to the Final Rule, “related to, affected by, or arising out of” is an
inclusive term.
Days after the EEOC issued the Final Rule, 17 states filed an action challenging the regulation. The
challenges were limited to aspects of the regulation that deal with an “elective abortion” (i.e., “an
abortion prompted exclusively by the woman’s choice, where no ‘physical or mental condition
related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. . .’
exists, but where getting the abortion creates some limitations on the employee’s ability to do her
job.”). On June 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit
without prejudice. In dismissing the lawsuit, the Court determined that the plaintiff states lacked
standing as they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of harm. The 17 states appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit denied their request for an administrative
stay and injunction pending appeal. Following the July and August briefing schedule, oral
arguments will be set during the September 2024 session of court in St. Louis, Missouri.
Separately, in the eleventh hour leading up to effective date of the Final Rule, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and several Catholic organizations were successful in seeking a preliminary injunction. In partially
granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana postponed the effective date of the Final Rule’s requirement that covered
entities provide accommodation for the elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to
treat a medical condition related to pregnancy. Additionally, with respect to these plaintiffs, the
Court preliminarily enjoined the EEOC from: (1) initiating any investigation into claims that a
covered employer has failed to accommodate an elective abortion that is not necessary to treat a
medical condition related to pregnancy; and (2) issuing any notice of right to sue with respect to the
same.
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein will continue to monitor future developments. In the meantime,
employers should familiarize themselves with the PFWA along with the Final Rule, ascertain how
the requirements of the PWFA impacts existing accommodation policies, procedures, and forms,
and train Human Resources professionals and management regarding its implications on the
workforce. Additionally, employers should continue to remain vigilant of both existing and
developing state and local laws governing workforce accommodations, including those arising out
of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that may meet or exceed those rights and
obligations established by federal law.[1]
The growing nuances of federal, state, and local laws are complex, especially for employers with a
multijurisdictional workforce. Hirsch Roberts Weinstein can work with businesses to develop and/
or review training, policies, procedures, and forms to support compliance efforts.
Questions/Compliance Assistance
If you have any questions about, please contact:
• Samantha Halem (shalem@hrwlawyers.com / 781-235-4878);
• Alicia Ward (award@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4357); or
• Any member of the HRW Team
To sign up for our Client Alerts, click here.
¹The Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219 (June 28, 2024) (overruling Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) may impact pending and trigger future legal challenges to agency regulations and interpretations.
