Employment

Like festive lights and bow-wrapped luxury cars, ‘tis the season for horror stories from company holiday parties. Office holiday parties are a cherished tradition and a nice way for companies to thank their employees for a job well done.

Before John Calipari, Rick Pitino and other presently successful college basketball coaches, there was the “Shark”. Jerry “Tark the Shark” Tarkanian held an impressive run as the Men’s Basketball Coach at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV) in the 80s and early 90s.

The holiday shopping season is known for its long lines, steep sales and mall traffic jams, but it also prompts retailers and other businesses to hire a wave of temporary, seasonal employees to increase staffing levels during the busiest time of the year.

Once again we are reminded that covenants not to compete given in connection with the sale of a business are an entirely different species from the employment kind.

When an employer requires an employee to move his or her primary residence to work, or continue working, for the employer, oftentimes the employer, as an inducement for the employee to accept the offer employment or continue employment, will agree to pay for some or all of the employee’s “relocation costs.”

True story: the other day I was speaking with a friend in the HR realm and I asked him whether he was familiar with the fluctuating workweek. He jokingly answered: “does that have anything to do with my weight gain during the holiday season?”

Under the federal WARN Act, and its more expansive counterpart, the New York State WARN Act, a sufficiently-sized employer must (absent limited exceptions) provide workers with a head’s up that the employer might shut down its operations or layoff a sizeable portion of the workforce.

It is a story familiar to many companies. Company hires employee into a managerial position exposing the employee to its confidential and trade secret information.

When a company evaluates a potential acquisition target, employment agreements and non-competition agreements might not top the list of assets and liabilities it considers.

“Associational discrimination” refers to a claim that a plaintiff, though not a member of a protected class, was still subjected to some type of adverse action because of his or her association with a member of a protected class.

Similar to recent legislation passed in New York City, the New Jersey Senate unanimously passed a bill on Monday that would explicitly prohibit employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, including recovery from childbirth.

Our colleague, Alden Bianchi, discusses recently-issued Treasury/IRS guidance regarding the impact of the Supreme Court's Windsor decision on claims for FICA refunds or credits here.

On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor,1 the Supreme Court held that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

Last Friday, the IRS provided guidance on ways for employers to reduce or eliminate the employer contribution to a safe harbor 401(k) plan mid-year, guidance which employers looking to enhance their bottom lines will welcome with open arms.

In the world of private equity, vast sums of money are raised by private investors who pool their money into collective funds in order to acquire companies, i.e., a “portfolio company”, with the goal of eventually flipping the portfolio company at a significant profit.

As reported last month, effective January 30, 2014, the New York City Human Rights Law will require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers.

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit took the unusual step of reversing an arbitrator’s award in favor of an ex-employee, finding that the arbitrator’s award was in “manifest disregard” of the law.

While the Boston Red Sox celebrate their first World Series clinched at Fenway Park in 95 years, two teams that missed the playoffs are making headlines for their pay off the field.

On October 29, 2013, the Massachusetts Connector released Bulletin 03-13, which sets forth a significant course change in the Commonwealth’s cafeteria plan, HIRD, and free rider surcharge rules.

The enforceability of employment-related arbitration agreements has been a hot-button issue these past couple of years.