Skip to main content

Employment, Labor & Benefits

Viewpoints

Filter by:

Viewpoint

The Bubbler

July 3, 2019 | Blog | By Natalie Young

Viewpoint-Landing Employment Counseling Training Mintz

President Directs Agencies to Expand HSA and FSA Rules

July 1, 2019 | Blog | By Patricia Moran

In an Executive Order issued on June 24, 2019, President Trump directed several agencies to address a number of health care related matters through regulation.  This focuses on Section 6 which takes aim at Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), health care Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), and medical expenses generally.
Viewpoint

New York To Curb Employer Use of Applicant and Employee Wage and Salary History

June 26, 2019 | Blog | By Brie Kluytenaar, Michael Arnold

Viewpoint

New York Extends Pay Equity Act to All Protected Classes

June 25, 2019 | Blog | By Jennifer Budoff, Michael Arnold

Viewpoint

Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave - Summary of Final Regulations

June 24, 2019 | Blog | By Natalie Young, Patricia Moran

On May 31, 2019, in Stein v. Blankfein, et. al., the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the Delaware Supreme Court’s holding in In re: Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (more information here) that the “entire fairness” standard applies with regard to director approval of director compensation. The Stein case builds on the precedent set in Investors Bancorp and provides additional insights.
Viewpoint

What’s New In Westchester County

June 13, 2019 | Blog | By Brie Kluytenaar

The Bubbler

The Bubbler - June 2019

June 13, 2019 | Blog | By Brie Kluytenaar

Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here.
This post summarizes the requirements of MAPFML and outlines the requirements of the private plan exemptions.  We also explain some of the obstacles employers who hope to take advantage of the exemption are likely to encounter. 
Viewpoint General
This post explains how to set up and monitor a retirement plan fiduciary committee in a manner that insulates the plan sponsor’s board and senior management from unnecessary fiduciary exposure.
Our colleague Gil Samberg offers analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, which held that neither silence nor ambiguity in an arbitration agreement about whether it permits class arbitration enables a court to find that the parties agreed to allow class arbitration.  If the parties wish to permit class arbitration, they must expressly memorialize that understanding within the four corners of an agreement to arbitrate.
We recently provided DC employers with information about the imminent Universal Paid Leave tax. Since that post, we have received word from the DC Office of Employment Services (DOES) that the first quarterly tax will be based on the wages you will have paid your employees during the current quarter (April 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019.) That means your first quarterly tax payment and wage report must be submitted to DOES no later than July 31, 2019, which is the last day of the first month following the quarter. You will be able to submit the quarterly tax payment and wage reports beginning July 1, 2019, including through the DOES online employer portal.
In a recent post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed rule increasing the salary threshold to qualify for a white collar exemption under federal law.  In response, many employers are evaluating whether to reclassify employees as non-exempt instead of raising salaries to maintain the exemption.  Along with this analysis, employers often struggle with two related issues: (1) how to calculate the regular rate of pay of non-exempt employees in order to calculate the proper overtime rate and (2) who is considered an “employer” and thus responsible for employee wages?  
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided that it will hear three cases in its next term, which, taken together, will test the textual boundaries of Title VII with respect to the meaning of sex discrimination. In this trio of cases, advocates for LGBT employment rights ask the Court to find that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes both claims of sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination – a logical extension, they say, in light of the Court’s jurisprudence on gender-based discrimination and an evolution of understanding about gender.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: