Employment

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is taking a hard look at employers who implement employee wellness programs that condition eligibility for benefits on participation in such programs. In the past few months, the EEOC sued three employers claiming that their wellness programs violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A Federal court in New York recently provided some pleading parameters for employers for claims of tortious interference with business relations.

One of your company’s 401(k) investment fund options is underperforming. Or, perhaps the fund is no longer appropriate for your employees. Or, perhaps a fund’s wildly successful fund manager has jumped ship to another fund company, investors are fleeing the fund in droves, and you do not want your plan to be last off the sinking ship.

My colleague, Jen Rubin, has posted on LinkedIn an interesting article on the kind of information that an ex-employee may—or may not—be free to use for the benefit of a new employer.

Applicable large employers faced with the prospect of complying with the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules must grapple with and understand what it means to make an offer of minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored [group health] plan to their full-time employees.

My colleague Rob Sheridan was quoted in an SHRM article entitled Big Data Only as Good as Data In, in which he comments on the HR and legal implications of both internal and external use of big data by employers. The article focuses on the new trend of big data use in recruiting and hiring top talent, and its meaning in regards to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The latest casualty to post-employment covenants came at the hands of a Connecticut trial court, which struck down a non-solicitation agreement under New York law as reaching beyond the legitimate business interests that deserve protection.

Under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules, applicable large employers (those with 50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees on business days during the preceding calendar year) incur exposure for assessable payments under Internal Revenue Code § 4980H when an applicable premium tax credit

A recent non-compete case out of a New York County court offers employers valuable drafting tips on non-compete and non-solicitation provisions.

Last month, we reported that an Illinois district court judge threw out the EEOC’s controversial lawsuit against CVS seeking to invalidate its severance agreements. The judge there did so and promised to follow up with a written opinion.

A federal district court in Washington has confirmed that an employer’s relationship with the cows that its employees serviced is insufficient to establish a legitimate protectable interest to enforce a non-compete.

My colleague Mitch Danzig was quoted in a SHRM article entitled Employees’ Use of Sharing Economy Poses Risks in which he comments on the risk employers face when requiring employees to use shared economy services such as Uber or Airbnb.

My colleague Jim Nicholas was quoted in an HR Morning article entitled High Court’s Decision Could End Up Costing Employers Big in which he comments on Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Jesse Busk, et al., a case pending in the Supreme Court on compensable vs. non-compensable activities for employees.

Under the Affordable Care Act’s rules governing employer shared responsibility—which are codified in Internal Revenue Code § 4980H—where an applicable large employer makes an offer of group health plan coverage that is both “affordable” and provides “minimum value” to substantially all of its full-time employees

If you are a D.C. employer, temporary staffing agency, contractor, or subcontractor, you have yet another wage and hour law to contend with: The Wage Theft Prevention Amendment Act of 2014.

The New York City Council’s Committee on Civil Rights recently held a hearing on a bill that would amend the New York City Human Rights Law to prohibit employers from basing an employment decision on the consumer credit history of an applicant or employee.

In a pair of recent decisions, two courts interpreting California’s quirky non-compete law confirm that employee non-recruitment covenants in California are enforceable—but only if those covenants are necessary to prevent employee raiding.

As one employee recently learned, a supervisor’s favoritism toward another employee because of a romantic relationship does not equate to unlawful discrimination. Additionally, a complaint of said favoritism cannot serve as the basis for an actionable retaliation claim.

Final regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules furnish employers with two alternative methods—the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method—for identifying full-time employees.

A recent decision from a Georgia federal district court concerning post-employment non-compete agreements reached two notable conclusions of which employers should take note