Supreme Court Petition Challenges Federal Rule That Denies Civil Rights to Millions of Unpaid Workers
June 6, 2025 — In a direct challenge to what critics call a "legal loophole," through which numerous meritorious claims have fallen, Dr. Cara Wessels Wells petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to extend Title VII protections to unpaid workers – potentially reshaping civil rights law.
Wells, a scientist and entrepreneur, alleges she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, and abrupt exclusion from Texas Tech University’s business accelerator program – where she served as a mentor – after speaking out about the misconduct. The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she was not legally an “employee” because her work in 2022 was unpaid.
At the heart of her petition is a challenge to the Fifth Circuit’s application of the “threshold-remuneration” test, a rigid rule that categorically bars unpaid workers from Title VII protection. The petition argues that the rule contradicts both the text and intent of federal civil rights law and is inconsistent with how several other circuits treat unpaid employment relationships.
In the petition, received by the Court on June 4, 2025, Wells warns of the national consequences of the current circuit split:
“An unpaid volunteer firefighter in Tennessee (Sixth Circuit) may be able to prove she is an employee and hold her harasser accountable under Title VII, whereas her counterpart just across state lines in Mississippi (Fifth Circuit) could be categorically denied any recourse... Such an outcome is intolerable under a comprehensive federal civil rights statute and demands this Court’s intervention.”
Brewer partner and lead counsel for Wells, William A. Brewer III, says, “Protection from discrimination in the workplace should not hinge on whether or not you happen to draw a paycheck. The Fifth Circuit has turned Title VII into a privilege for the paid, not a right for the working.”
Wells filed her original complaint in March 2023, claiming she was subjected to years of sexual harassment and degradation at Texas Tech, and then denied compensation and patent royalties to which she was entitled. In the complaint, Wells describes the inner workings of a hierarchical system where TTU professors Dr. Samuel Prien and Dr. Lindsay Penrose allegedly took credit for her work, subjected her to harassment and humiliation, and retaliated when she complained to school leadership. Thereafter, the University shielded the professors from accountability.
While the Second, Fifth, and other circuits require financial compensation as a threshold for employment protection, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits instead apply a common-law agency test, examining the relationship’s totality. Wells' petition urges the Supreme Court to resolve this doctrinal rift and affirm that Title VII’s protections extend to those whose roles may be unpaid but whose labor is real.
Wells’ case is particularly timely given the prevalence of unpaid labor in internships, academic research, startups, and public service. Legal scholars call the remuneration rule “unduly rigid” and warn it leaves millions of non-traditional workers without recourse when harmed.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide later this year whether to take up the case.
Joining Mr. Brewer in representing Wells is Brewer partner Will Brewer IV and attorneys Jed Sexton and Lucia (Lucy) Arbor.
Brewer Firm Announces that Virginia Supreme Court Sides with NRA in High-Stakes Contract Dispute, Rejects Expansion of State Contract Law
May 30, 2025 – New York, New York… In a widely watched contract clash, the Supreme Court of Virginia has delivered a decisive victory for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in its dispute with Under Wild Skies, Inc. (UWS).
UWS was the producer of the hunting show Under Wild Skies, which the NRA sponsored for over two decades. The dispute arose after UWS claimed NRA repudiated the contracts and sued for over $20 million. The ruling cements the NRA’s trial win over UWS and affirms longstanding principles of contractual interpretation in the Commonwealth.
The case centered around a failed television sponsorship relationship between the NRA and UWS, which for 26 years produced a hunting-focused show under the same name.
UWS alleged that the NRA’s 2019 request for business information about the success of the show – amidst an internal compliance review (and its subsequent delay in making a scheduled payment) – constituted an anticipatory breach of their agreement. UWS attempted to bolster its case by urging the trial court to instruct the jury on the “doctrine of adequate assurance,” which allows a party to demand confirmation of performance if they suspect the other side might default.
In a decision dated May 29, 2025, the trial court rejected the instruction, the Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and the Supreme Court now affirmed it – definitively stating that the doctrine of adequate assurance is not recognized under Virginia common law. The high court emphasized that the doctrine – originally rooted in the Uniform Commercial Code and later extended in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts – represents a “modern innovation” not adopted by Virginia courts or legislators for general contract disputes.
Writing for the Court, Justice Cleo E. Powell declared that any expansion of Virginia’s contract doctrine is a matter for the legislature not the judiciary. “The decision to adopt a new doctrine applicable to all contractual disputes is a policy decision that is more appropriately left to the legislature,” she wrote.
The ruling has broader implications beyond this case, reaffirming that Virginia courts will not judicially adopt evolving doctrines from other jurisdictions without express legislative direction. It also protects entities like the NRA from facing new legal standards retroactively applied in civil litigation.
“We are pleased the Court affirmed the outcome below,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at the Brewer firm, which represented the NRA in this matter and others through fall 2024.
Last year, the NRA prevailed at trial in a “dissolution lawsuit” brought by the New York Attorney General, and secured a unanimous, 9-0 decision before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country.
The Court’s refusal to expand the law ensures that contractual obligations in Virginia will continue to be interpreted under traditional principles of clear repudiation and actual breach.
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA were firm partner William A. Brewer IV and Robert H. Cox of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP in Virginia.
New York Law Journal / Albany Times Union Report on Lawsuit Against Former NRA President Oliver North
May 21, 2025 — The New York Law Journal and Albany Times Union report that Brewer client Thomas King, president of the NRA Foundation, has filed a countersuit against former NRA Board President Oliver North. The suit "cites New York’s anti-SLAPP statute that protects New Yorkers from frivolous lawsuits meant to silence whistleblowers."
Filed in the state Supreme Court of Rensselaer County on May 19, 2025, King's lawsuit says he reported "allegations of serious ethics violations by North through the NRA's confidential internal disciplinary process," the Law Journal reports.
”Our client believes Col. North's action in Virginia is a clear abuse of our judicial process — a classic SLAPP lawsuit filed to punish Mr. King for exercising protected rights,” said Svetlana Eisenberg, partner at Brewer and counsel to King. “Thomas King's actions were entirely lawful, rooted in responsible governance and accountability. The lawsuit aims to demonstrate that attempts to suppress whistleblowers through retaliatory litigation violate New York law and threaten the essential principles of transparency and integrity within nonprofit organizations."
To read the Albany Times Union article, click here.
To read the New York Law Journal article, click here.
Statement by William A. Brewer III, Partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, on Supreme Court Hearing Regarding President Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
May 15, 2025 — The U.S. Supreme Court hearing today represented a pivotal moment, not for immigration law but also for the broader issue of judicial power and its proper scope. As counsel deeply involved in constitutional and immigration matters, we closely followed the arguments presented.
On the ultimate efficacy of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, the justices appeared skeptical over the order, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. The longstanding precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark appeared front of mind for several justices, highlighting significant constitutional concerns with the executive order.
However, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's commentary regarding the challenges of eliminating nationwide injunctions that underscored the importance of today’s argument. She noted that the removal of such remedies could inundate courts with countless individual lawsuits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further emphasized the risks inherent in reducing nationwide injunctions, potentially undermining the consistency and reliability essential to our legal system.
Conversely, other justices expressed concerns about judicial overreach, specifically through nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested class-action lawsuits as preferable alternatives, emphasizing procedural rigor and judicial precision.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised pointed questions regarding the Trump administration’s inconsistent positions on nationwide injunctions versus class-action litigation, highlighting the nuanced challenges in balancing judicial remedies.
The Court’s upcoming decision, expected by late June or early July, carries profound implications. While Trump's executive order seems likely to be invalidated, the broader question of limiting nationwide injunctions may significantly impact future judicial strategies for challenging federal policies.
We at Brewer, through our Storefront affiliate, remain committed to safeguarding constitutional principles, advocating for consistent application of the law, and closely monitoring developments that could reshape judicial authority and executive accountability.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Reports on North Allegheny High School Competing in IPPF Finals
May 8, 2025 — The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that the North Allegheny High School speech and debate team beat out hundreds of other schools to make it as one of the top eight competitors in the 24th annual Brewer Foundation/NYU International Public Policy Forum Finals (IPPF) held May 3 in New York City.
“Reaching the world finals is incredibly difficult and requires being selected for the Round of 64 and then defeating teams from across the world in single-elimination bouts until reaching the top eight," said debate coach Dominic Moore. "This activity requires high-level research, writing and argumentation skills as each round’s essays are judged by experts.”
The Allegheny team included senior Kelly Tai, junior Samuel Xiao and sophomores Kaartic Muralidharan, Eric Peng and Aayushi Vardhan. The team placed as a Quarterfinalist and won $1,500.
“It’s not just a competition. It’s a proving ground for tomorrow’s policy thinkers and public voices,” said William A. Brewer III, chairman of the Brewer Foundation and founder of the IPPF.
Read more here.
Southlake Style Reports on IPPF Champion Carroll Senior High School Debate Team
May 6, 2025 — Southlake Style reports on Brewer Foundation/NYU International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) World Champion Carroll Senior High's victory in this year's debate competition.
The Dragons won first place at the 24th annual competition, held May 3 in New York. The team took home the “Brewer Cup” and the $10,000 grand prize.
Carroll's winning team of Tanya Kuriakose, Amber Lin, Nether Tummalapalli and Anushka Velala -- coached by Anthony Brown -- defeated DuPont Manual High School of Kentucky in the final round. Lin, a freshman, was awarded the John E. Sexton Award and a $1,000 prize for an exceptional performance during the final round.
William A. Brewer III, Brewer Foundation chairman and IPPF founder, said that "[Carroll] demonstrated a command of the topic and persuasive force that defines the art of advocacy. They earned their victory on a big stage, under the intense pressure of world-class intellectual competition."
He added, "The IPPF doesn't just build debaters -- it cultivates future leaders. At a time when civil discourse among those with opposing views seems nonexistent, this tournament annually engages students around the world in rigorous research, writing and oral advocacy on a topic of international importance."
Read more here.
Global Debate Champions Crowned: Carroll Senior High School Wins IPPF Title, $10,000 Prize
New York… May 3, 2025 – After eight months of fierce international competition, a team from Carroll Senior High School in Southlake, Texas, has triumphed at the 24th annual Brewer Foundation / NYU International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) Finals — earning the coveted title of IPPF World Champion and a $10,000 grand prize from the Brewer Foundation.
The final debate, held Saturday, May 3, at the Harold Pratt House in Manhattan, concluded a journey that began in October 2024 with 283 teams from 26 countries and 30 U.S. states.
This year’s resolution challenged teams to weigh equity against intellectual property, with teams debating the topic: “Resolved: Equitable access to pharmaceuticals should be prioritized over protecting intellectual property rights.”
From the original pool of 283 teams, 64 advanced into a rigorous single-elimination written debate tournament. The top eight — the “Elite Eight” — earned an all-expenses-paid trip to New York City as guests of the Brewer Foundation to engage in high-stakes, in-person debates before a panel of global experts.
The final debate was attended by more than 100 contest participants, NYU representatives, and professional staff from the Brewer law firm.
“This team demonstrated a command of the topic and persuasive force that defines the art of advocacy,” said William A. Brewer III, chairman of the Brewer Foundation and founder of the IPPF. “They earned their victory on a big stage, under the intense pressure of world-class intellectual competition.”
Brewer added, “The IPPF doesn’t just build debaters — it cultivates future leaders. At a time when civil discourse among those with opposing views seems nonexistent, this tournament annually engages students around the world in rigorous research, writing, and oral advocacy on a topic of international importance. By doing so, the IPPF equips them with the tools to lead, to question, and to speak with purpose. It’s not just a competition; it’s a proving ground for tomorrow’s policy thinkers and public voices.”
The winning team — coached by Anthony Brown and composed of students Tanya Kuriakose, Amber Lin, Nethra Tummalapalli, and Anushka Velala — bested top contenders in the quarterfinals and semifinals before defeating duPont Manual High School of Louisville, Kentucky, in the final round.
In addition to being named a world champion, debater Amber Lin, a freshman at Carroll Senior, was awarded the John E. Sexton Award and a $1,000 prize for exceptional performance during the Final Debate.
Additional Awards:
· Runner-Up: duPont Manual High School from Louisville, Kentucky ($5,000 prize)
· Sexton Award Winner: Amber Lin of Carroll Senior High School received the John E. Sexton Award and a $1,000 prize for exceptional performance during the Final Debate.
· Semifinalists: Blue Valley High School of Stilwell, Kanas, and Westwood High School of Austin, Texas ($3,000 each)
· Quarterfinalists: Alpha Co of La Cresenta, California; Kealakehe High School of Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; North Allegheny Senior High School of Wexford, Pennsylvania; and Peak to Peak Charter School of Lafayette, Colorado ($1,500 each)
Judging Panel:
The proceedings were judged by a panel comprised of NYU President Emeritus John Sexton; Miha Andric, an international debate coach and Director of Education Center Argument based in Slovenia; Will Baker, Director of the NYU Global Debate Fund; Trey Smith, Executive Director of East Mountain High School; and Alex Pouille, Zone Europe Chief Financial Officer for Anheuser-Busch InBev. The debate moderator was David Baker, famed debate coach and Director of Admission & Financial Aid at St. Mark’s School of Texas.
About the IPPF and the Brewer Foundation:
The IPPF was founded in 2001 by the Brewer Foundation and is now jointly administered with New York University. The program is available to all high schools around the world – public and private – for free. The IPPF is endorsed by leading forensic agencies, such as the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, the International Debate Education Association, the Impact Coalition, Associated Leaders of Urban Debate Leagues, and the National Debate Coaches Association.
The Brewer Foundation is a private, non-profit organization funded by companies, individuals and the national litigation firm of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. With offices in New York and Dallas, the Foundation has achieved widespread recognition for its efforts to create, fund and manage a variety of educational outreach programs.
Texas Lawyer, Above The Law Report on Brewer Firm Boosting First-Year Associate Salaries to $300,000
April 29, 2025 — Texas Lawyer and Above The Law report that Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced it will raise first-year associate salaries to $300,000, effective Sept. 1, up from the current $250,000, "as the Dallas-founded trial boutique strives to take on more litigation under alternative billing arrangements."
Firm founder William A. Brewer III told Texas Lawyer the firm wants to hire creative, superstar first-year associates as the firm leverages the efficiency of AI to meet increased demand, as clients are increasingly focused on outcomes instead of hours.
"We don’t want to pound clients with lots of hours. What you want to get to is value," Brewer told Texas Lawyer. "We are desperately trying to flip the script and reduce our hourly fee business to 20% or a little lower and have most of our work be based on an alternative arrangement."
Read the Texas Lawyer article here and Above the Law here.