Employment

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy recently signed a new law that amends Connecticut’s Paid Sick Leave Statute. Connecticut was the first state to mandate paid sick leave policies for service workers back in January 2012.

White House officials reported today that President Obama intends to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The order would protect up to 16 million employees working for employers with federal contracts.

Do you still think that business owners aren’t responsible for wage and hour law violations? Do you think that a court will only award liquidated damages where the violation is wilful? Think again.

In a case of first impression, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employer can be held liable under Title VII for quid pro quo sexual harassment based on the discriminatory actions of a non-supervisory employee where the employer knew or should have known of the employee's discriminatory actions.

It was just over a year ago that the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Employers Eye Bare-Bones Health Plans Under New Law,” which highlighted a compliance strategy to minimize employer exposure for assessable payments under the employer shared responsibility provisions of the Affordable Care Act (the “Act”)

Sometimes California employers do get a win when battling in the minefield of California’s wage and hour laws. So California employers, please pause to rejoice in this moment because you know you may not get another one for a while.

Every firm has employees, as well as individuals that it has “failed” to hire, or promote, or recognize and reward to the extent that the individuals believes befitting. This is what makes it difficult to completely avoid employment disputes and possible litigation.

The issue of employee misclassification was once again on display, this time in Nance v. NYP Holdings, where a New York appellate court affirmed an earlier finding that the New York Post failed to classify one of its photojournalists properly.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) generally prohibits discrimination in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on a health factor, except in the case of certain wellness programs. Final regulations issued in 2006 established rules implementing these nondiscrimination and wellness provisions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the agency responsible for enforcing most of the federal discrimination laws – is preparing to issue new guidance addressing an employer’s obligation to reasonably accommodate pregnant workers. Will the guidance offer a new interpretation of the law or just cement what we already know?

It’s official.  The Seattle City Council has voted to raise Seattle’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2021.  Is this the sign of groundswell?

The IRS announced at recent bar association meeting that it is commencing a formal compliance initiative program (CIP) of selected employers and their deferred compensation arrangements that are subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

The IRS recently issued two Q&As on the subject of employer payment plans, the purpose of which was to again underscore that arrangements purporting to allow an employer to reimburse employees on a pre-tax basis

A Federal court in Colorado recently permitted a former employee to advance an age discrimination claim despite his prior execution of a severance and release agreement after his employment ended in connection with a reduction in force.

Earlier this month, in Webb-Weber v. Community Action for Human Services, Inc., New York’s highest court overruled several appellate court cases in holding that an employee need not identify the specific law, rule or regulation allegedly violated by his or her employer in pleading a retaliation claim under New York’s whistleblower statute.

In last week’s post, we examined the appropriateness of capping the annual hours of new “variable hour employees” as a way to limit exposure under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules. (These rules are codified at Internal Revenue Code § 4980H and implemented in final regulations issued in February of this year.

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.