Employment

Okay, so despite our previous post saying the opposite, employers likely will not have to distribute New York State Wage Theft Act Annual Pay Notices after all.

A federal judge in Colorado has once again stymied the EEOC’s efforts to successfully challenge an employer’s standard separation agreement as violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Last week, in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous opinion holding that post-shift employee security screenings were noncompensable activities under the Fair Labor Standards Act because those screenings were neither the principal activity the employees were hired to perform.

Many applicable large employers—i.e., employers that are subject to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility rules—have a pretty good sense of what these rules are, how they work, and what they plan to do to comply.

We have posted extensively about the NLRB’s crusade against overbroad workplace policies (see our most recent posts here and here), ranging from social media policies to workplace conduct and disciplinary policies and everything in between.  Well the Board is back at it again -- handing down two solicitation decisions in the past couple of weeks.

Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions remain on the rise.

Massachusetts voters recently approved a ballot initiative amending the Commonwealth’s labor statute to require employers to provide workers with up to 40 hours of paid sick time per year.

In its Murphy Oil decision, the National Labor Relations Board affirmed its 2012 holding in D. R. Horton, which found an employer violates the NLRA when it requires employees

Over the summer, we posted about an interesting New Jersey appellate court decision (Rodriquez v. Raymours Furniture) enforcing a provision in a job application that reduced the period in which an employee could sue an employer to six months from the date of the adverse employment action.

As applicable large employers grapple with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility (pay-or-play) rules, two questions arise with notable frequency

To the consternation and bewilderment of many, the New York State Legislature never sent to Governor Cuomo the bill it passed earlier this year repealing the New York State Wage Theft Act’s Annual Pay Notice Requirement.  As a result, employers will be forced next month to once again distribute pay notices to all of their employees.

Those of you who joined us for our November 13 webinar on “Post-Employment Solicitation of Customers & Employees in the Social Media Age” will be interested in a recent social media-related non-solicitation case from Connecticut that – you guessed it – echoes some of the guidance that I, together with my partners Michael Arnold and Bret Cohen

While my entries have focused principally on the employer shared responsibility rules of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), every once in a while an item comes along that nevertheless grabs my attention. The treatment of wellness plans at the hands of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is such an item.

Over the last couple of months, we have followed and reported on a particular ACA compliance strategy under which an employer subject to the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility

Some employers in the health care and other industries who regularly deal with the federal government and are subject to the False Claims Act ("FCA") have felt helpless in trying to weed out serial whistleblowers in the hiring process. After all, most anti-retaliation provisions prohibit retaliation against both employees and applicants.

Last year, the Department of Labor and the Treasury Department/IRS (Departments) issued guidance on the application of certain of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance market reforms to health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), certain health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and certain other employer health care arrangements.

Since 2007, most Massachusetts residents have been required to either obtain health insurance coverage meeting Massachusetts “minimum creditable coverage” standards, or pay a state tax penalty (for 2014, the penalty ranges from $240 to $1104 per year, depending on income).

In a previous post, we described an Affordable Care Act compliance strategy—referred to commercially as a “minimum value plan” or “MVP”—that involves an offer of group health plan coverage that, while similar in most respects to traditional major medical coverage, carves out inpatient hospital services.

Following up on a topic discussed recently in this space, a class action filed last month against LinkedIn represents just the latest development in the burgeoning battle over defining the permissible and impermissible uses of big data in the employment arena.

Last week, we blogged about the EEOC’s recent litigations involving employee wellness programs, including the Honeywell case where the EEOC sought to prohibit Honeywell from penalizing employees who decline to participate in the company’s wellness program.