Employment

Last week, President Obama ordered U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Tom Perez to update the existing federal regulations on overtime, the effect of which could allow millions of workers to qualify for time and half pay for the first time.

This year’s NCAA Division I Basketball Tournament may be the last of its kind. This post explores some of the brewing legal issues that may force big changes to future “Final Fours,” and in turn, the legal rights and obligations of the NCAA and its member universities, and athletics personnel and student-athletes.

The last few weeks have produced a regulatory frenzy under various provisions of the Affordable Care Act affecting employers.

With the Olympics now behind us (were they ever in front of us?), this time of year usually marks the sports netherworld between the Super Bowl and the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, which is better known as March Madness. This lull provides employers with an excellent opportunity to contemplate the issues that March Madness creates in their workplace.

Code § 6055 imposes on entities that offer minimum essential coverage (i.e., health insurance issuers, certain sponsors of self-insured plans, government agencies and other parties that provide health coverage) the obligation to report certain information about the coverage to the employee and to the IRS.

Don Schroeder, our oft-quoted labor law attorney, was recently featured in an article on CNN in which he discusses the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, TN and its rejection of representation by the United Auto Workers.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has sued Modell’s Sporting Goods and its prominent fourth-generation CEO, Mitchell Modell, claiming Modell brazenly visited a Dick’s retail location and impersonated a Dick’s executive to unlawfully gain a competitive advantage.

It seems like every day there is a new case highlighting novel and evolving issues employers confront when people disclose information via social media. The latest example involves a hapless college-age daughter in Florida that caused her father to forfeit his settlement payment from a former employer because she announced the settlement on Facebook.

The Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) generally prevents an otherwise eligible employee (or dependent) from having to wait more than 90 days before coverage becomes effective under a group health plan.

So much attention has been paid to the issuance of the final employer shared responsibility regulations that some might have missed the news that final regulations were recently issued under another of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions affecting group health plans—i.e., the ban on waiting periods that exceed 90 days.

Our tax colleague, Jonathan Talansky, is out with a new advisory addressing Section 83's impact on lock-up arrangements.

Following up on our earlier coverage, last week the New York City Council passed the very first bill it introduced during the de Blasio administration (Int. 0001-2014), a law amending the Earned Sick Time Act that it passed (and already amended) just last year. The vote turned out to be a real nail-biter: 46 to 5. The relevant changes to the Act are as follows:

In last week’s post on the topic of the recently issued final regulations under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility (a/k/a “pay-or-play”) rules, we suggested that the final regulations broke little new ground. Instead, we claimed that the final regulations.

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service recently issued final regulations implementing the employer shared responsibility provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

As the nation recovers from the latest series of winter storms, let the rise of temperatures serve as a reminder of the incoming season – tax filing season. For institutional non-profits such as colleges and universities, this means the filing of the Form 990, a required informational tax return of the IRS.

The National Labor Relations Board is seeking amicus briefs to help it decide whether full-time, non-tenure-eligible contingent faculty members at Pacific Lutheran University (PLU) are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) coverage as “managerial employees.”

It’s already hard enough for California employers to keep track of and comply with the myriad federal and state background check laws.

The employment practices risk profile for companies that employ members of the same family may have just increased as a result of Dillon v. NED Management, Inc., a decision out of the Eastern District of New York.

Two NFL teams are facing wage and hour class action lawsuits filed by their cheerleaders. On January 22, an Oakland Raiderette sued the Raiders organization on behalf of herself and current and former cheerleaders alleging that the Raiders violated a slew of California labor laws.

Last week, my colleague and Chair of Mintz Levin's Immigration practice, Susan Cohen, published an alert addressing H-1B visa petitions.  The takeaway: do not delay in identifying H-1B candidates and initiating the petition process.