NELA

Empowering Workers' Rights Attorneys

Pedro Valverde

NELA Opposes Justin D. Smith Nomination to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Dear Senator Durbin,

On behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and its 4,000 national, circuit, state, and local affiliate members across the country, we write to express our opposition to the nomination of Justin D. Smith to fill a vacancy in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

NELA is the largest professional membership organization in the country comprised of lawyers who represent workers in employment, labor, and civil rights disputes. Founded in 1985, NELA’s mission is to empower workers’ rights attorneys through legal training, promoting a fair judiciary, and advocating for laws and policies that level the playing field for workers. Our members litigate daily in every federal district and circuit, affording NELA a unique perspective on how employment cases actually play out on the ground and an accurate understanding of the profound impact of the judiciary on the daily lives and rights of working people.

Mr. Smith has spent his legal career siding with the rich and powerful and advancing an extreme conservative agenda, including serving as a board member with far-right dark money organizations such as First Principles Action and Publius Fund. This … Read More

NELA Stands with Workers on May Day 2026

On May Day 2026, the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) stands with workers, their families, and the advocates who fight for them. With plaintiffs’ employment lawyer members in almost every state, NELA has spent four decades empowering those who defend workers’ rights. That mission has never been more urgent.

The workers our members represent are the people who make this country run: nurses and warehouse workers, teachers and farmworkers, federal employees facing mass termination, immigrant workers living under the threat of deportation, and those in every industry who depend on the rights to be free from discrimination, harassment, wage theft, retaliation, and unsafe conditions in their workplaces.

The attacks on working people, on the institutions built to protect them, and on the advocates who refuse to stand down are part of a continuing and escalating assault on our democracy and the rule of law. The lawyers and organizations who stand with workers are being targeted and silenced. NELA will not be silent, and neither will our members.

Justice in the workplace is not a privilege—it is a right worth fighting for. On this May Day, NELA calls on every organization and individual committed to fairness, equality, and the rule of … Read More

The Administration Continues Its Assault on Civil Rights and Those Who Stand for Justice

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) condemns the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Trump administration’s continued weaponization of the Department of Justice to dismantle civil rights and free speech.

The indictment of the SPLC is only the latest chapter in a deliberate and escalating pattern of using the government’s most powerful tools to silence, punish, and dismantle any organization, institution, or individual that chooses to hold a different view or pursue a different mission. This administration is now calling longstanding civil rights work criminal in an attempt to reverse the very definition of civil rights, and to eliminate the organizations doing this critical work. From law firms to federal employees to civil rights advocates, the message has been consistent: conform or face consequences.

Speaking out is not a crime. NELA stands in solidarity with all those committed to defending fairness and equality, and we will continue to fight for a legal system that delivers justice for all—regardless of who holds power.… Read More

The Farmworker Movement Belongs to All of Us

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) is deeply troubled by the allegations that César Chávez sexually abused women and girls during his leadership of the United Farm Workers. No individual’s legacy, however significant, can excuse the use of power and influence to abuse others.

We stand with Dolores Huerta, the survivors who have come forward with courageous and painful truths, and the farmworkers whose decades of struggle, sacrifice, and solidarity built one of the most consequential labor movements in American history. The women who built this movement alongside Chávez and others deserved better.

In this difficult moment we take guidance from Ms. Huerta herself, who wrote: “The farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual. Cesar [Chavez]’s actions do not diminish the permanent improvements achieved for farmworkers with the help of thousands of people. We must continue to engage and support our community, which needs advocacy and activism now more than ever.”

NELA is committed to standing with workers, with survivors, and with the communities who have given so much to this movement. We honor that work by continuing it together, and supporting attorneys, advocates, and workers seeking justice and collective power in workplaces … Read More

O’Neill v. University of Pennsylvania

On February 19, NELA, joined by the National Women’s Law Center, filed an amicus brief in the 3rd Circuit case O’Neill v. University of Pennsylvania. This important case addresses the proper standard to analyze employer responsibility for 3rd party harassment. In O’Neill, the Plaintiff was a junior academic employee who was required to interact with a student who repeatedly intimidated her and subjected her to unwanted romantic communications that caused her serious harm, eventually forcing her from her position.

The district court (in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court, 3rd circuit, and 9 other circuit precedents) adopted the new 6th Circuit intent-based standard from Bivens v. Zep, which held that plaintiffs must show intent on behalf of the employer in 3rd party harassment cases.

NELA’s brief examines the importance of holding employers to a negligence standard, the standard recognized by most circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.  The brief argues that employers are best positioned to address the harassment of their employees once on notice, as they have the ability to prevent and remedy the work environment where the harassment occurs. Courts have repeatedly found that the negligence standard incentivizes employers to create proactive policies to … Read More

Doe v. Catholic Relief Services

On January 9, NELA joined the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association (MWELA) as amici in the 4th Circuit case, Doe v. Catholic Relief Services. The brief was written in support of John Doe, who was employed by Catholic Relief Services (CRS). CRS originally provided healthcare benefits to married spouses of employees, including LGTBQ+ couples. CRS later terminated health insurance coverage for John Doe’s husband, citing their religious objection to gay marriage. Doe sued CRS claiming sex and sexual orientation discrimination under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), sex discrimination under the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (MEPEWA), Title VII, the federal Equal Pay Act, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for Doe on his federal claims, holding that his suit was not barred by the doctrine of church autonomy nor by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Our brief echoes the previous brief NELA and MWELA drafted in Zinski v. Liberty University. In both cases, a religious employer engaged in adverse employment action against members of a protected class. Both religious employers defended their actions on religious grounds, arguing that their decisions were made on the basis of religion and not protected class. … Read More

NELA Opposes the Nomination of Andrew Davis to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Dear Senator Durbin,

On behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and its 4,000 national, circuit, state, and local affiliate members across the country, we write to express our opposition to the nomination of Andrew Davis to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin).

NELA is the largest professional membership organization in the country comprised of lawyers who represent workers in employment, labor, and civil rights disputes. Founded in 1985, NELA’s mission is to empower workers’ rights attorneys through legal training, promoting a fair judiciary, and advocating for laws and policies that level the playing field for workers. Our members litigate daily in every federal district and circuit, affording NELA a unique perspective on how employment cases actually play out on the ground and an accurate understanding of the profound impact of the judiciary on the daily lives and rights of working people.

Mr. Davis’s background and experience indicate that he is not a standard conservative nominee; rather, he appears to be a highly specialized architect of the modern conservative legal movement’s most aggressive structural arguments. His career … Read More

Holsten v. Barclays Services, LLC

On January 20, 2026, NELA joined the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, the National Women’s Law Center, Public Justice, and the American Association for Justice as amicus curiae in the 4th Circuit case Holsten v. Barclays Services, LLC. This brief is the latest in a series filed by our coalition to ensure circuits are interpreting the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) in a broad and uniform manner, ensuring that survivors of workplace sexual harassment and assault can seek vindication in the courts. Aloma Holsten filed suit on several claims against Barclays after experiencing sex-based harassment in the workplace. The district court found, with the Fourth Circuit affirming, that Ms. Holsten’s entire case, not merely the harassment claim, would be exempt from arbitration under the EFAA. Our brief supports that conclusion.

As the brief demonstrates, Congress enacted the EFAA in 2022 to ensure that survivors of sexual assault and sex-based harassment could seek justice in court rather than be forced into arbitration proceedings. The brief argues that the EFAA’s plain text, legislative history, and case law all confirm that, under the EFAA, plaintiffs can invalidate arbitration agreements if sex-based harassment has occurred, … Read More

NELA Files Comment on Rescission of Subregulatory FLSA Guidance from the CFR

On July 2, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in which it proposed to remove from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) all the interpretive rules and policy statements contained in Title 29, Chapter V, Subchapter B of the CFR. These portions of the CFR deal with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and include a wealth of information that is useful to judges and plaintiffs’ lawyers in interpreting the FLSA, as well as to regulated entities in promoting effective legal compliance. This proposed change would remove approximately 485 separate regulations from the CFR on an incredibly wide range of FLSA-related topics.

On August 1, NELA filed comment on the proposed rule, calling on the DOL to take a less arbitrary approach to its interpretive regulations and emphasizing the decades-long reliance of judges, attorneys, and regulated entities on the substantial body of accumulated departmental expertise contained in these portions of the CFR. The CFR provisions at issue have been referenced by judges in over 1,000 FLSA opinions. NELA also pointed out that these interpretive rules have stood the test of time, such that they have demonstrated their “power to persuade” by virtue of the “experience … Read More

Executive Director

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) and National Institute for Workers’ Rights (NIWR) seek a creative, self-aware, and empathetic leader to guide the organizations in building on our strategic plan and goals, expanding our resources and membership, and championing a culture of equity, inclusion, and cultural and racial literacy.

Who We Are

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), a 501(c)(6) organization, is the largest professional organization in the United States whose members are lawyers who either exclusively or primarily represent workers in cases involving employment and traditional civil rights issues, race discrimination, sexual harassment, wage theft, employee benefits, and other employment-related matters. Founded in 1985, NELA and its circuit, state, and local Affiliates have more than 3,000 members nationwide. In carrying out our mission to empower workers’ rights attorneys, NELA provides exceptional opportunities for professional development through continuing legal education programs, networking, publications, and technical support. NELA advocates for workers’ rights through partnerships with our Affiliates and coalition partners, and by participating as amicus curiae in briefs to voice the interests and perspectives of workers in significant employment cases filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, U.S. District Courts, and before government agencies. NELA advocates before … Read More

NELA Statement on Worksite Raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICE Worksite Raids Target Vulnerable Workers and Undermine Labor Protections

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) condemns the raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its law enforcement collaborators, which target vulnerable workers, suppress their voices, and deny access to the legal systems in place to protect them. These raids are a direct assault on fundamental human rights and do nothing to address the root causes of labor exploitation, silencing individuals who might otherwise report wage theft, discrimination, hazardous conditions, and even human trafficking.

By perpetuating a climate of intimidation, ICE’s actions enable abuse, erode access to labor and employment protections, and undermine due process. No worker—regardless of immigration status—should fear retaliation for demanding fair wages and safe working conditions. These raids harm not only the individuals they target but also the integrity of our labor system, creating an environment where abusive workplace conduct thrives unchecked and workers and their advocates are in danger of arrest, deportation, or other harms.

NELA calls for an end to these raids and urges enforcement efforts to focus on holding employers accountable for labor and employment law violations, rather than punishing the workers subjected to their employers’ greed. We stand resolute … Read More

National Employment Lawyers Association Statement on the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the worker in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that the “Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.” Along with the Biden Administration, NELA filed an amicus brief on behalf of the worker in Ames, authored by renowned Supreme Court practitioner Professor Eric Schnapper. In light of the expected unanimous result in favor of Ames and against the “background circumstances” test, NELA focused its brief on asking the Court to clarify that no workers should be subject to an overly rigid application of McDonnell Douglas at the summary judgment stage, a call that was endorsed by other civil rights organizations.

The Court spoke to the issue. While the holding was narrowly focused on the “background circumstances” test, both the majority and concurring opinions emphasized the importance of flexibility when courts apply McDonnell Douglas. Justice Jackson’s opinion for the majority noted: “The ‘background circumstances’ rule also ignores our instruction to avoid inflexible applications of McDonnell Douglas’s first prong. … Read More