Employment

The DOL is at it again.  First it was the highly-anticipated release of the proposed overtime rules a few weeks ago, and now the Department’s Wage and Hour Division has issued an “Administrator’s Interpretation” – its first of the year – clarifying the Department’s views on the appropriate analysis for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors.

A recent Circuit Court case confirms that the term “non-inducement” means just that.

As a major national company learned recently, employers cannot shirk their obligations to investigate employee complaints of a hostile work environment simply because the identity of the harasser is unknown.  Failure to investigate all good faith complaints of harassment can result in serious liability for the employer under the anti-discrimination statutes.

One of the most disconcerting things about the DOL's proposed rule release was that it failed to provide any real clarity on its stance regarding the job duties test.  Rather than set forth concrete proposed changes for comment, the DOL asked a series of questions on whether it should in fact modify the job duties test, and if so, how.

The divorce metaphor bears fruit yet again when it comes to the employment relationship. To this mix I add the concept of “no fault” divorce and the reasons employment ends.

As ubiquitous as limited liability company interests may be these days, litigants are still arguing over whether the sale of LLC membership units is like the sale of stock.  When a stock sale takes place, the new owners of the stock simply fill the shoes of the old stockholders.

A Federal Appeals Court recently confirmed that under certain circumstances, parties may privately settle and release claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  A generic release contained in a settlement agreement won’t do it; instead, the parties must cite to a bona fide dispute regarding wages in the settlement agreement.

Employers are generally aware of the obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to engage in an “interactive process” with employees who require accommodations in order to perform their duties, but identifying the point at which this obligation is met is far from an exact science.

Reports in the popular media portrayed King v. Burwell as a case involving premium tax subsidies used to purchase health insurance from public exchanges or marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

On June 23rd, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development met to consider legislation relating to the legality and enforcement of non-compete agreements.

Who gets what in a break-up? I’ve addressed the employment break-up and the metaphorical marriage contract in my corporate divorce series, but what about the distribution of property when employment ends?

My colleague, Jennifer Rubin, was quoted in this article by Law360 on the impact of the California Labor Commissioner's recent ruling regarding Uber's classification of its drivers as independent contractors.

The Second Circuit struck a blow today to individuals pursuing collective/class actions alleging that unpaid interns should be classified as employees.  The Court announced an employer-friendly test that asks who benefits more from the internship – if it’s the individual, then classification as an employee entitled to minimum wage and overtime is not necessary.

The Department of Labor has released its long-awaited notice of proposed rulemaking updating the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white collar overtime exemptions.  The DOL released the proposed rule on Tuesday morning and will invite interested parties to submit written comments over the next two months.

In a previous post we discussed the Northern District of Georgia’s decision in Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, LLC, (N.D.Ga. May 5, 2015), holding that an employer violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) by obtaining DNA samples from two employees it suspected of repeatedly defecating in a company warehouse.

Recently, Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Administrator David Weil announced that the DOL would issue an “administrator interpretation” letter early this summer on how an employer can best address whether an individual qualifies as an independent contractor.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases during its Fall 2015 term that could further transform the wage and hour class action landscape.  We briefly discuss those two cases below.

Last week the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire an employee for use of medical marijuana away from the workplace.  The case is Coats v. Dish Network, No. 13SC394 (June 15, 2015).

The Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law, which requires nearly all Massachusetts employers to provide earned sick time to employees, goes into effect on July 1, 2015. Unless they qualify for the limited safe harbor provision (discussed below), employers must be in compliance with the law and allow employees to begin accruing time on July 1.

Early last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a former employee’s hospital stay did not count as an “overnight stay” under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and thus did not trigger the FMLA’s protections, because the employee was not admitted to the hospital and discharged on two separate calendar days.