Punxsutawney Hunting Club, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Game Commission

NFIB filed an amicus brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding policy considerations unique to Pennsylvania.

The brief argues that Pennsylvania should establish greater protection for property rights in its constitution by abandoning the “open fields” doctrine.

Mayfield v. Department of Labor

NFIB filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asserting that the law’s exemption focuses on an employee’s duties and does not permit a minimum salary threshold. The brief also states that increasing overtime eligibility hurts small businesses.

“When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), it did not give the Department of Labor clear and direct authority to impose a salary threshold to qualify for the EAP exemption,” said Elizabeth Milito, Executive Director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center. “Small businesses struggle when government agencies bypass Congress in creating new mandates that impact their day-to-day business operations like employee compensation. We ask the Court to consider small businesses and reverse the district court’s ruling.”

The brief argues three main points:

• the EAP exemption focuses on an employee’s duties, not salary,
• the decision to import salary requirements in the EAP exemption should rest with Congress, and
• the department’s interpretation of the salary threshold for the EAP exemption significantly harms the business community.

Utah v. Su

NFIB filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing the text of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must be read narrowly, and the consideration of non-financial factors like ESG must be extremely limited.

The brief argues two main points:

• the phrase “Appropriate Time Horizon” is vague and opens the door to wrongful non-financial considerations, and
• the rule places an extraordinary oversight burden on small businesses that provide employee retirement plans.

Thomas Connelly v. U.S.

NFIB filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court questioning whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy taken out by a closely held company on a shareholder constitutes an asset of the company. Specifically, when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for federal estate tax purposes. NFIB filed the brief with the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

“Many closely held companies are small and family-owned businesses and are critical to their local economy,” said Milito. “This case highlights the complex challenges those small businesses face with the federal estate tax. We urge the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision.”

The brief argues three main points:

• closely held companies play a vital role in the economy,
• redemption agreements and life insurance are vital, prudent planning tools for closely held companies that the decision below improperly threatens, and
• the IRS’s inconsistent positions and lack of reasoned explanation disentitle its current interpretation to deference.