Employment

Corporate Counsel followed up on my entry on the amendments to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, which we expect Governor Cuomo to sign shortly.

A recent decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most important courts in the nation, reaffirmed that a company’s internal investigations—if structured properly—are protected from disclosure in litigation by the attorney-client privilege.

My article on pregnancy accommodations, the EEOC's updated Enforcement Guidance and the Young v. UPS case, which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term, was published in Thompson's ADA Compliance Guide August 2014 Newsletter.

JD Supra's Business Advisor recently asked my colleague Jennifer Rubin what is "the one thing that a business's non-compete agreement should accomplish."

To call the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. much-anticipated or highly controversial is an understatement. And, to be clear, any time the Supreme Court weighs in on bed-rock constitutional principle—particularly as it affects the church-state relationship, it is a big deal.

In December, we wrote about New Jersey’s proposed “ban the box” measure, known as the Opportunity to Compete Act, making its way through the legislature – a law that would prohibit employers from inquiring about job candidates’ criminal histories early in the hiring process.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied a request to review the issue of whether the Fair Labor Standards Act grants employees a non-waivable right to bring a collective action and thus, renders arbitration agreements with collective action waivers unenforceable.

Massachusetts is the latest state to take up the minimum wage mantle, as Governor Deval Patrick signed a law raising minimum wage in the state on June 26th.  As we have discussed on this blog, there is a movement afoot nationally to raise the minimum wage for low wage workers, and states and cities keep upping the minimum wage ante.

The California Supreme Court issued an important decision last week on the enforceability of employment class action waivers included in arbitration agreements. The result: private parties can contract for the waiver of the right to pursue a class action in any forum.

To call the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. much-anticipated or highly controversial is an understatement. And, to be clear, anytime the Supreme Court weighs in on bed-rock constitutional principle—particularly as it affects the church-state relationship, it is a big deal.

The Departments of the Treasury/IRS, Labor and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) recently issued a final regulation under the 90-day waiting period limitation, which is included among the Affordable Care Act’s (the “Act”) insurance market reforms.

A recent decision from the Massachusetts federal district court serves as a good reminder to Massachusetts employers that courts are unlikely to view the breach of a non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement as justification to impose a non-competition restriction on a former employee where no such express restrictive covenant exists.

I’m not quite sure why California felt it was necessary to effectuate key changes to employment laws in the middle of summer when most of us are trying to break away from work and enjoy our vacations.

Today, the Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, unanimously affirming an appellate court decision striking down three of President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. I briefly discuss the case and its impact on employers below.

Check out this insightful post from my colleagues Samantha P. Kingsbury and Karen S. Lovitch over at our sister blog, Health Law and Policy Matters, discussing a recent decision about a relator that allegedly breached of a confidentiality agreement by filing a qui tam case.  These types of cases against relators are becoming more common in the qui tam context.

Sitting here in the Big Apple, the thought of the New York City Council voting to narrow the reach of the New York City Human Rights Law seems roughly equivalent to the thought of a Game of Thrones episode without any violence. It’s just not going to happen.

A California Federal court recently permitted a disability discrimination claim to proceed to a jury trial in a lawsuit alleging that Walgreens unlawfully terminated a diabetic employee for violating its “anti-grazing” policy by eating potato chips on the job without first paying for them.

Recent developments under the Affordable Care Act and COBRA, and existing rules governing mid-year election changes under cafeteria plans, have combined to make it challenging for certain terminating employees and those employees who experience a reduction in hours to continue health care coverage seamlessly.

For the first time the Second Circuit Court of Appeals tackled the Fair Labor Standards Act’s public agency volunteer exception. In Brown v. New York City Board of Education, the Court outlined the contours of the exception and affirmed a lower court decision finding that the individual at issue was a volunteer and not an employee entitled to minimum and overtime wages.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Department of Labor must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to significantly alter its interpretation of the agency’s Fair Labor Standards Act regulations (Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association and Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association).