Employment

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).

New York is set to end its requirement under the Wage Theft Prevention Act that employers annually distribute notices to employees detailing certain wage payment information. In just the short time it was in effect, this requirement proved an administrative headache for most employers.

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy recently signed a new law that amends Connecticut’s Paid Sick Leave Statute. Connecticut was the first state to mandate paid sick leave policies for service workers back in January 2012.

White House officials reported today that President Obama intends to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The order would protect up to 16 million employees working for employers with federal contracts.

Do you still think that business owners aren’t responsible for wage and hour law violations? Do you think that a court will only award liquidated damages where the violation is wilful? Think again.

In a case of first impression, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employer can be held liable under Title VII for quid pro quo sexual harassment based on the discriminatory actions of a non-supervisory employee where the employer knew or should have known of the employee's discriminatory actions.

It was just over a year ago that the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Employers Eye Bare-Bones Health Plans Under New Law,” which highlighted a compliance strategy to minimize employer exposure for assessable payments under the employer shared responsibility provisions of the Affordable Care Act (the “Act”)

Sometimes California employers do get a win when battling in the minefield of California’s wage and hour laws. So California employers, please pause to rejoice in this moment because you know you may not get another one for a while.

Every firm has employees, as well as individuals that it has “failed” to hire, or promote, or recognize and reward to the extent that the individuals believes befitting. This is what makes it difficult to completely avoid employment disputes and possible litigation.

The issue of employee misclassification was once again on display, this time in Nance v. NYP Holdings, where a New York appellate court affirmed an earlier finding that the New York Post failed to classify one of its photojournalists properly.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) generally prohibits discrimination in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on a health factor, except in the case of certain wellness programs. Final regulations issued in 2006 established rules implementing these nondiscrimination and wellness provisions.