Employment

Recently, Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Administrator David Weil announced that the DOL would issue an “administrator interpretation” letter early this summer on how an employer can best address whether an individual qualifies as an independent contractor.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases during its Fall 2015 term that could further transform the wage and hour class action landscape.  We briefly discuss those two cases below.

Last week the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire an employee for use of medical marijuana away from the workplace.  The case is Coats v. Dish Network, No. 13SC394 (June 15, 2015).

Early last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a former employee’s hospital stay did not count as an “overnight stay” under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and thus did not trigger the FMLA’s protections, because the employee was not admitted to the hospital and discharged on two separate calendar days.

Welcome to the latest installment in my corporate divorce series. In my last article I gave some practical advice about how to handle an unexpected firing – a corporate break-up.

On June 19th, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (AGO) issued final regulations for the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law, which goes into effect next week on July 1, 2015.

As of July 1, 2015, any employer with employees in California must comply with the state’s new Paid Sick Leave Law (AB 1522). Below is a brief summary of what this change will mean to employers:

Since 2012, many states have enacted laws that restrict an employer’s capacity to access employees’ personal email and social media accounts.  Last month, Connecticut joined the party and became the 21st state to enact an employer-employee social media privacy law.

Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony that was not dismissed, expunged, or sealed?  New York City employers, if you ask that question on your employment application or some version of that question, then remove it.

The Supreme Court recently held that job applicants may hold their potential employer liable for intentional discrimination under Title VII if the applicant can show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the potential employer’s decision not to hire that applicant

In our prior installments, we determined that students who work at least 30 hours per week for their educational institutions are “full time” employees of those institutions under the Affordable care Act’s employer shared responsibility mandate.

In Part 2 of this miniseries, we discussed whether a student health insurance plan may be used to help an educational institution avoid penalties under t the Affordable Care Act’s “employer shared responsibility” mandate with respect to individuals who are both students and full-time employees of the institution.  Conclusion: it cannot.

In the previous installment of this series, we addressed whether student employees may be excluded from an employer’s offer of coverage.  We concluded that a blanket exclusion of this nature could put an employer at risk for ACA penalties.

The NLRB continued its assault on employee handbooks and policies, as an administrative law judge recently found several provisions in the Macy’s handbook, including the confidential information policy, to be unlawful, as employees would reasonably read them to restrict protected concerted activity.

This post highlights the significant impact the proposed regulations may have on advisers to mid-sized and small 401(k) retirement plans if adopted.

Educational institutions employ students in a variety of positions including work-study positions, teaching and research assistantships, and resident assistantships.  This four-part series will discuss several issues that have arisen under the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility mandate with respect to those student workers.

In Part 1 of this series, we reported on recently proposed regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor amending the definition of the term “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).

The Supreme Court has decided an important statute of limitations issue in an ongoing fiduciary breach case, Tibble v. Edison International.  Tibble has attracted attention up to this point for its substantive claim: that plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence when they failed to use the plan’s status as an institutional investor to gain an edge on fund fees.

In Part 1 of this series, we reported on recently proposed regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor amending the definition of the term “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).

Out with the old and in with the new.  In a decision issued last week, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a single incident of harassment was sufficient to move a harassment claim forward.