Employment

It seems like every day there is a new case highlighting novel and evolving issues employers confront when people disclose information via social media. The latest example involves a hapless college-age daughter in Florida that caused her father to forfeit his settlement payment from a former employer because she announced the settlement on Facebook.

The Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) generally prevents an otherwise eligible employee (or dependent) from having to wait more than 90 days before coverage becomes effective under a group health plan.

So much attention has been paid to the issuance of the final employer shared responsibility regulations that some might have missed the news that final regulations were recently issued under another of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions affecting group health plans—i.e., the ban on waiting periods that exceed 90 days.

Our tax colleague, Jonathan Talansky, is out with a new advisory addressing Section 83's impact on lock-up arrangements.

Following up on our earlier coverage, last week the New York City Council passed the very first bill it introduced during the de Blasio administration (Int. 0001-2014), a law amending the Earned Sick Time Act that it passed (and already amended) just last year. The vote turned out to be a real nail-biter: 46 to 5. The relevant changes to the Act are as follows:

In last week’s post on the topic of the recently issued final regulations under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility (a/k/a “pay-or-play”) rules, we suggested that the final regulations broke little new ground. Instead, we claimed that the final regulations.

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service recently issued final regulations implementing the employer shared responsibility provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

As the nation recovers from the latest series of winter storms, let the rise of temperatures serve as a reminder of the incoming season – tax filing season. For institutional non-profits such as colleges and universities, this means the filing of the Form 990, a required informational tax return of the IRS.

The National Labor Relations Board is seeking amicus briefs to help it decide whether full-time, non-tenure-eligible contingent faculty members at Pacific Lutheran University (PLU) are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) coverage as “managerial employees.”

It’s already hard enough for California employers to keep track of and comply with the myriad federal and state background check laws.

The employment practices risk profile for companies that employ members of the same family may have just increased as a result of Dillon v. NED Management, Inc., a decision out of the Eastern District of New York.

Two NFL teams are facing wage and hour class action lawsuits filed by their cheerleaders. On January 22, an Oakland Raiderette sued the Raiders organization on behalf of herself and current and former cheerleaders alleging that the Raiders violated a slew of California labor laws.

Last week, my colleague and Chair of Mintz Levin's Immigration practice, Susan Cohen, published an alert addressing H-1B visa petitions.  The takeaway: do not delay in identifying H-1B candidates and initiating the petition process.

Don Schroeder, one of our labor law attorneys, was recently quoted in a Corporate Counsel article discussing the National Labor Relations Board complaint filed against Wal-Mart over alleged threats to employees engaged in company protests. In particular, the article examines Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and whether it applies to the complaint.

The Treasury Department and the IRS last week issued long-awaited final rules implementing the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility (a/k/a “pay-or-play”) rules. Originally slated to take effect beginning January 1, 2014, enforcement was delayed a full year by IRS Notice 2013-45.

On this Valentine’s Day I thought it would be a good idea to share an article that my partner Jen Rubin wrote a couple of years back.  It remains required reading to this day for employers trying to effectively manage their employees’ workplace romances.

Anti-poaching agreements, non-recruitment pacts, no-hire contracts, whatever you want to call them, require a protectable interest to be enforceable in New York. That’s what a Southern District of New York judge in Reed Elsevier Inc. v. TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. held.

A January 18th New York Times article (Rules for Equal Coverage by Employers Remain Elusive Under Health Law) reported on the progress, or lack thereof, of the adoption of group health plan non-discrimination regulations under the Affordable Care Act’s insurance market reforms.

Breaking with long standing tradition—i.e., issuing important rules on a Friday before a holiday weekend, or (failing that) any Friday (hence the reference to Week 45½ in this post)—the Treasury Department and the IRS today issued a 227-page final regulation under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility (a/k/a “pay-or-play”) rules.

Last week the Colorado Supreme Court decided to review a 2013 appellate court decision holding that Colorado employers may lawfully terminate employees for their off-duty use of medical marijuana even if they are not impaired on the job.