Employment

On June 23rd, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development met to consider legislation relating to the legality and enforcement of non-compete agreements.

Who gets what in a break-up? I’ve addressed the employment break-up and the metaphorical marriage contract in my corporate divorce series, but what about the distribution of property when employment ends?

My colleague, Jennifer Rubin, was quoted in this article by Law360 on the impact of the California Labor Commissioner's recent ruling regarding Uber's classification of its drivers as independent contractors.

The Second Circuit struck a blow today to individuals pursuing collective/class actions alleging that unpaid interns should be classified as employees.  The Court announced an employer-friendly test that asks who benefits more from the internship – if it’s the individual, then classification as an employee entitled to minimum wage and overtime is not necessary.

The Department of Labor has released its long-awaited notice of proposed rulemaking updating the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white collar overtime exemptions.  The DOL released the proposed rule on Tuesday morning and will invite interested parties to submit written comments over the next two months.

In a previous post we discussed the Northern District of Georgia’s decision in Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, LLC, (N.D.Ga. May 5, 2015), holding that an employer violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) by obtaining DNA samples from two employees it suspected of repeatedly defecating in a company warehouse.

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).

The Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law, which requires nearly all Massachusetts employers to provide earned sick time to employees, goes into effect on July 1, 2015. Unless they qualify for the limited safe harbor provision (discussed below), employers must be in compliance with the law and allow employees to begin accruing time on July 1.

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.