As promised, today we give you and third and final installment of our three-part series addressing the new opinion letters issued by the U.S. Department of Labor on July 1, 2019. To read about the other letters issued by the DOL, check out this blog post and this blog post. The final opinion letter, FLSA2019-9, addresses permissible rounding practices for calculating the number of hours worked by an employee. Continue Reading U.S. Department of Labor Issues New Opinion Letters: Part Three – Rounding Hours
In our last blog post, we revealed a three-part series intended to address the new opinion letters issued by the U.S. Department of Labor on July 1, 2019. The second of these opinion letters, FLSA2019-8, addresses whether paralegals employed by a trade organization are exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA – an issue of admittedly more limited interest, except as to employers of such individuals. Continue Reading U.S. Department of Labor Issues New Opinion Letters: Part Two – Paralegals
On July 1, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor issued three new opinion letters that address compliance issues related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). These letters are official, written opinions by the Department’s Wage and Hour Division that respond to fact-specific scenarios posed by employers and employees alike. We are going to address each of the opinion letters in separate blog posts over the course of the next week. But for now, let’s dive into the first of the three opinion letters! Continue Reading U.S. Department of Labor Issues New Opinion Letters: A Three-Part Series (Part One – Bonuses and the Regular Rate)
A recent case caused me significant concern on behalf of employers. As you may know, before an employee may file a federal discrimination lawsuit against their employer, they must first file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (And, on a related note, just recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held that this charge-filing requirement was a procedural one that could be waived by the employer, as we discussed in our E-lert). But what happens if the EEOC never notifies the employer of the charge? Continue Reading Penalizing the Employer for the EEOC’s Mistake?
In a rare unanimous decision, on a closely-watched issue, from all four sitting members of an ideologically-divided National Labor Relations Board, the Board ruled that an employer’s arbitration agreement unlawfully restricted employee access to the Board and its processes. Continue Reading Arbitration Agreement May Not Restrict Access to NLRB Processes
The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has overruled decades-old precedent in holding that employers may deny access for non-employee union representatives to public restaurants and cafeterias on the employer’s private property. Continue Reading NLRB Limits Union Access Rights
Just in time for Father’s Day, JPMorgan has agreed to pay $5 million dollars to settle a class action lawsuit based on a discriminatory parental leave policy. We previously blogged about this case when the ACLU announced that it was filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a JPMorgan dad. (and you can check out that blog post for a deeper explanation of the legal underpinnings of this issue, if you’re really interested). But this settlement provides an emphatic (and timely!) reminder to employers to take a look at their maternity/paternity or parental leave policies to make sure they don’t run afoul of the law. Continue Reading Hey – New Dads Need Leave Too!
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination before bringing a discrimination lawsuit is a procedural requirement that may be waived, as opposed to a jurisdictional one that would deprive a court of the ability to even hear the case. Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Finds Charge Filing Requirement to be Procedural, Not Jurisdictional
Governor Hogan announced on May 24, 2019 that he was vetoing HB994, the “Ban the Box” bill, as our partner Liz Torphy-Donzella predicted he would do in our webinar on Maryland’s recently enacted employment laws. This means that, absent a veto override, this bill will not become law. The bill, however, passed with veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, so we will likely see a veto override in the next General Assembly session. Continue Reading Governor Hogan Vetos the Ban the Box Bill
Debt can alter one’s future trajectory for good or for ill. The latter is reflected in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Although they are the most educated generation ever in the U.S., Millennials at the tail end of their generation incurred unprecedented debt for college – often six figure debt – then graduated into the Great Recession. Their employment opportunities were truncated. As a result, their income potential (and debt repayment capability) has been damaged, seemingly beyond repair. They have collectively put off home buying and starting families, which has ripple effects for the future, from reduced home buying opportunity to delayed or foregone child rearing. Continue Reading Debt or No Debt? Your Employees’ Future in the Balance