Employment

Wait, are parties from both sides of the congressional aisle finally coming together to pass an employment-related law? It appears that way.

With the Memorial Day weekend approaching, many people are looking forward to hitting the beach, firing up the grill and polishing off their golf clubs, which are, for many Northeasterners, covered in cobwebs after this long winter. For employers, summer often means the arrival of (potentially unpaid) interns.

The EEOC recently invited public input on potential revisions to the regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which governs the federal government’s employment of individuals with disabilities.

Most jurisdictions in the United States hold that continued employment constitutes sufficient consideration in exchange for entering into a non-competition agreement.

Our sister blog, Privacy and Security Matters, has recently published a terrific series of blog posts on cybersecurity for the boardroom.

Whenever Congress draws a line in the sand—such as with exposure for assessable payments under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibly rules—entities subject to regulation (here, applicable large employers) will inevitably seek ways to avoid having to comply. Also inevitably, some compliance strategies will be perfectly legitimate, while others will not.

Whether a group health plan provides minimum value is central to the application of the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules. The particulars of the role of minimum value in determining assessable payments due from applicable large employers are explained in detail in final regulations issued on February 12 of this year.

Retirement plan administrators routinely receive requests from employees to accept rollover contributions of amounts held in a prior employer’s qualified plan or, in some cases, an IRA.

My colleagues in the firm’s Immigration Practice recently posted an advisory on F-1 students with OPT employment eligibility, and what those students should keep in mind before October 1. If this applies to you and you find yourself in one of the below situations, read the advisory to get more info.

Beach towel - check, sunscreen - check, beach tunes playlist - check, make sure the company complies with California’s July 2014 minimum wage increase - che...wait, what?! You ask, “how is it possible that a California employment law is now part of my summer plans?!”

A recent submission in an advice column on Boston.com struck my eye and the scenario should be no surprise to the modern worker. A Massachusetts at-will worker decides to take a “mental health day” and calls in sick, despite the fact that he is not actually sick.

Yet another federal court judge, the Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. of the Eastern District of Missouri, recently ruled, in Whittaker v. America's Car-Mart, Inc., that an employee’s severe obesity could constitute a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Protecting your trade secrets and restricting competition is important, and getting the right restrictive covenant is part of that protection. Join Bret Cohen, Mitch Danzig, and Jeff Lambert, the Chief Legal Officer of our client The Active Network, for this webinar on May 28th.

Commencing with plan and policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act amends the Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”) to make three important changes to the rules governing health insurance underwriting practices that apply to the individual and group markets (but not to grandfathered arrangements):

A recent decision from a Massachusetts superior court reinforces what we’ve known for quite some time – be extremely mindful of the actions you take with respect to an employee lodging a complaint under M.G.L. 151B, the state’s anti-discrimination statute, or else you may face retaliation claim and hefty monetary damages.

Templates are available here in English and other available languages.  Make sure to also provide this notice to any new hire on a going forward basis.

Many employers are surprised to learn that the employment relationship does not automatically convert to “at-will” when an employee’s fixed employment term expires. Instead, when asking for clarification on this issue, employers are usually on the receiving end of their least favorite lawyerly answer: “It depends.”

With so much attention focused on the particulars of the employer shared responsibility and, to a slightly lesser extent, reporting rules, it’s easy to lose sight of other important changes—including final regulations issued under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA)

Two recent victories for the EEOC should remind employers that rejecting a job applicant over a medical condition, even when the condition appears directly related to job performance, can expose the employer to serious legal consequences under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Judge Selya’s recent First Circuit opinion in Rivera-Diaz v. Humana Insurance of Puerto Rico, Inc., hammers home the importance of strictly abiding by Title VII’s procedural requirements for filing discrimination claims in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)