Employment

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

The concepts of “hours of service” and “full time” loom large in the Affordable Care Act’s “employer shared responsibility” mandate (also known as the “employer mandate” or “pay or play mandate”). An employee who works 30 “hours of service” per week is considered to be “full time” under the mandate.

Recently, Allison Grande of Law360 reported on the warnings representatives from the FTC and EEOC provided to employers about using big data in the workplace at a panel hosted by the FTC. This post briefly explores those warnings.

My colleague Tyrone Thomas was quoted in a SHRM article entitled Confront Employees Who Perpetrate Domestic Violence in which he comments on ways employers can investigate an employee’s alleged off-duty, off-site domestic violence. The article focuses on employers’ courses of action when they suspect an employee is committing domestic violence.

A federal court has tossed the EEOC’s controversial lawsuit against CVS seeking to invalidate its severance agreements. While the EEOC still has a similar lawsuit pending against another company in Colorado, employers can brief a sigh of relief for the moment.

This summer’s FIFA World Cup was truly spectacular. I know this because I’ve been working in the same office building for years and not once has every one of the 10+ pubs located within a five-block radius been packed to the gills on a weekday afternoon for a sporting event.

Sadly, for this writer, Yankee legend Derek Jeter’s playing days have come to a close. This summer we were able to watch the Captain and five-time World Series Champion take the final swings of his illustrious career where he finished 6th on the all-time hits list – a remarkable accomplishment.

For purposes of complying with the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules (which are codified in Internal Revenue Code § 4980H), employers must identify their “full-time employees.”