Employment

Not only is it “March Madness” time, it is also prime tax return filing time.  That means that the email scammers are out in full force as well.

My colleague Mitch Danzig, was quoted in a SHRM article entitled, Keep Employees on the Ball During March Madness, in which he provides strategies for employers to avoid legal claims when monitoring employees’ computer use. The article outlines ways employers can both manage “cyberslacking” and boost morale in the workplace during March Madness.

JD Supra has recognized Mintz in its 2016 Reader’s Choice awards, highlighting the most widely read authors and articles. With seven authors being recognized, Mintz commanded one of the strongest presences in the awards.

This is the first installment of a series regarding legal issues affecting college athletics that this blog will run during this year’s NCAA basketball tournament. Two horrible March Madness brackets ago, we analyzed the myriad of legal and operational challenges that could change the face of intercollegiate athletics. 

My colleague, Cynthia Larose authored an article entitled, “Getting Your Firm Beyond the Breach,” which appears in the January-February digital version of American Staffing Association’s magazine. The article provides an action plan for staffing firms facing a data breach caused by a temporary employee.

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a seminal ruling in Bulwer v. Mt. Auburn, which clarified the type of evidence an employment discrimination plaintiff needs to defeat a summary judgment motion.

Beginning April 1, 2016, new California regulations (§11023 specifically) will require all California employers with more than five employees to have written policies regarding harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.  For some employers, this may mean drafting a specific policy for the first time; for others, it may require some tinkering with an existing policy.

Sometimes a judge says what many of us are already thinking.  In Rivera v. Crowell & Moring L.L.P., Katherine B. Forrest was that judge. While lengthy, Rivera reads like a garden-variety employment discrimination summary judgment opinion; that is, until we reach page 40.

A large number of US companies relied on Safe Harbor for transferring employee data from their EU affiliates.  Since employee consent usually can’t be relied upon for data transfers, many companies have moved over to the EU’s “model clauses,” which are inflexible and cumbersome to put in place.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) made the regulation of employee benefit plans principally a matter of Federal concern. ERISA broadly and generally preempts—or renders inoperative—state laws that “relate to” employee benefit plans.

In Howard v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., a Hawaiian Federal Court found that Hertz Rent-a-Car could not be held responsible for its employee’s Facebook comments about one of its customers.  While employers should welcome the outcome, it did turn on the facts, and could have produced a different result under different circumstances.

This week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed its first lawsuits alleging sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII against employers in Pennsylvania and Maryland.  In both cases, the EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Donald Trump has become part of the national conversation. Not a single day goes by now without Mr. Trump filling up at least one news cycle.

That’s what DOL Solicitor of Labor, M. Patricia Smith, reportedly said at the 2016 American Bar Association’s Midwinter Meeting.  But remember: she also said at another conference in November 2015 that the DOL was targeting a “late 2016” release date, while the DOL Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, told Bloomberg BNA in December 2015 that he expected a spring 2016 release.

As many employers know, one of the first steps in responding to an EEOC charge filed by a current or former employee is to put together a position statement to refute the complainant’s allegations and otherwise support the employer’s position.

My colleague Tyrone Thomas, was quoted in the Law360 article entitled, College Athlete Employee Claims a Dead End Post-Penn Suit, in which he analyzes the Indiana court’s decision to dismiss former University of Pennsylvania student-athletes' wage-and-hour claims and the impact of this ruling on recent efforts to classify student-athletes as employees.

My colleague Natalie Young, was quoted in a Turnarounds & Workouts article entitled, “Trump Wins Again: Debtor-Employers Allowed to Reject Expired CBAs”, in which she explains the bankruptcy court’s decision to allow Trump Entertainment to reject expired collective bargaining agreements.

2015 largely brought more of same for California employers: increased wages and benefits for employees and decreased flexibility with employee classifications, the scope of arbitration agreements, and ways to structure compensation. But how will courts and the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement implement 2015’s new laws? What lies ahead in 2016?

Last month, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, in which the Court ruled that “an unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for complete relief does not moot a plaintiff’s individual and class action claims.”

Last summer the Second Circuit issued an important decision that identified the proper test for determining whether an employer properly classified an individual as an unpaid intern.