Employment

Effective July 1, 2013, the Massachusetts “Fair Share” Law1 has been repealed as part of the Commonwealth’s 2014 fiscal year budget package.

On January 4, we wrote that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a dentist acted legally when he fired a female employee because he had become irresistibly attracted to her – a situation the employer’s wife, also an employee, found objectionable. Earlier today the Court, which had taken the unusual step of granting a motion for reconsideration, upheld its decision.

As we wrote about previously, the legality of unpaid internships is a hot issue this summer, with courts struggling over two issues: (1) whether employers must classify entry-level “interns” as employees under the law, and therefore pay them at least minimum wage and overtime, and (2) whether the job conditions of groups of interns are similar enough so that class action

In a surprise announcement posted yesterday to the White’s House website, the Obama Administration announced a one-year delay (to January 1, 2105) in the enforcement of the employer shared responsibility rules enacted into law by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The regulation of marriage was historically presumed to be the exclusive domain of the states. Since 1996, however, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”)1 changed this presumption in two important respects:

As we reported in our post earlier today, the Obama administration has decided to delay implementation of the “employer shared responsibility” mandate for in order to afford employers more time to prepare for compliance.

The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying a female employee less than a male employee for work that requires substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that is performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment.

On June 11, in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.., the US District Court for the Southern District of New York held that unpaid interns who worked for on the movie “Black Swan” had been improperly classified, and were entitled to pay for all hours work.

What do fashion designer Norma Kamali, journalist Charlie Rose, Elite Model Management Corporation, and the Hearst Corporation have in common?  All have been sued by former unpaid interns, claiming that their unpaid status violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules will require large employers (50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees) to make an offer of minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of their full-time employees or pay a non-deductible excise tax on all their full-time employees.

The Affordable Care Act’s employer-shared responsibility rules will require large employers (50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees) to make an offer of minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of their full-time employees or pay a non-deductible excise tax on all their full-time employees.

A key policy goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) is the expansion of health insurance coverage to all Americans. The concepts of “minimum value” and its correlate “actuarial value” speak to the generosity of that coverage.

As expected, the New York City Council has passed the Earned Sick Time Act, which, if enacted, will require most City employers to provide job-protected sick leave, whether paid or unpaid, to the more than 1.6 million employees who currently do not receive this benefit.

The IRS announced it is nearing completion of a five year long compliance project involving tax-exempt colleges and universities. The project, which began with questionnaires to 400 randomly-selected institutions, focused on reporting of executive compensation and unrelated business income.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the federal government, state governments, insurers, employers, and individuals all share responsibility to make affordable health insurance coverage widely available.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”), the federal government, state governments, insurers, employers, and individuals all share responsibility to make affordable health insurance coverage widely available.

A recent Massachusetts court decision upheld efforts by staffing companies and workers compensation insurers to close a loophole that allowed staffing-firm employees injured at a client company both to collect workers compensation benefits and to sue the company where they were hurt.

Recently, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Hire Dynamics, a staffing firm (click here for the EEOC press release).  According to the complaint, after a Hire Dynamics employee filed a charge of discrimination against one of its clients, the staffing firm retaliated by failing to give the employee any further job assignments or opportunities.

Does a “make whole” offer of judgment to the lead plaintiff in a wage and hour collective action put an end to the case?  According to the US Supreme Court, the answer is “yes”- at least on the specific facts of the case before it.

A significant recent Seventh Circuit decision, written by noted Judge Richard Posner, affirmed decertification of an FLSA collective action, essentially on the ground that the collective action could not satisfy the predominance standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  You read that correctly.