Employment

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.

Two Massachusetts decisions—including one from the state’s highest court—applied the same standard regarding enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate.  In each case, plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements with another party.

If someone continually, yet anonymously, defecated on the floor of your workplace, you’d probably want to use any and all legal means at your disposal to identify and discipline the perpetrator.  Your methods might include surveillance or perhaps some form of forensic or other testing to link the offensive conduct to a specific individual.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued proposed regulations that make sweeping changes to the definition of the term “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  To call this proposal controversial is an understatement.

Despite overwhelming judicial disapproval, the NLRB simply will not relent in its view that mandatory arbitration agreements containing class/collective action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act.

As has been widely reported, President Obama has ordered the US Department of Labor to updated existing federal regulations on overtime in order to account for the changing nature of the workplace and to allow both workers and businesses to better understand and apply the exemptions.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said that conciliation efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are subject to limited judicial review.

We have been following the high-publicity battle between Uber and Lyft, on the one hand, and the drivers on the other, over whether the drivers are properly classified as independent contractors.  Uber and Lyft argue they are mere technology companies facilitating the connections between drivers and would-be passengers.

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has issued proposed regulations to the Massachusetts Earned Sick Leave Law, which was approved by voters in November 2014 and goes into effect on July 1, 2015 – less than two months from now.

Mayor de Blasio recently signed a series of bills that, among other things, require the New York City Human Rights Commission – the agency responsible for enforcing the New York City Human Rights Law – to conduct employment discrimination investigations using the paired testing method.  This is the Commission’s version of a sting operation.

In what appears to be a sign of things to come, a federal court in New York recently approved the use of social media to notify potential class members who were more likely to be reached that way rather than by more traditional forms of notice, such as regular mail.