Companies’ employee-recruitment ads on social media and websites are the latest targets of the plaintiff’s bar. L&E Global’s member firm in the United States, Jackson Lewis P.C., reports on the latest legal trends affecting employers with US operations that are being targeted with this claim. What is the claim? The legal argument being asserted is […]
Employers would be expressly permitted to require servers and other tip-earning employees to share their tips with employees working in the kitchen and other “back of the house” employees, but only when the employer does not use the tip credit and state law would not otherwise prohibit the practice, under proposed regulations published by the Department of Labor (DOL). This is a reversal of the current DOL regulations, which would be rescinded
Under the ACA, employers must provide plans that cover birth control and other preventative health services with no out-of-pocket costs. Certain religious employers with religious objections to providing contraceptive services have been exempt from the requirement. The new rules, issued through the IRS, DOL, and HHS, broaden the exemption in scope and in application to for-profit entities that object to providing or covering identified contraceptive services due to sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.
USA (Oct. 2017): On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s position that gender identity is protected as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination — taking a position that is contrary to current guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The Department of Labor’s May 2016 Final Rule, which would have more than doubled the minimum salary necessary to satisfy the “executive, administrative or professional” (the “EAP” or “white collar”) overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, is invalid, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has held. State of Nevada v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 4:16-CV-731, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140522 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017). This cements the position the court took in granting a preliminary injunction against the DOL last November
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has directed the Acting Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to suspend implementation of the EEOC’s revised EEO-1 report, which included detailed pay reporting obligations. Prior to this directive issued on August 29, 2017, employers were scheduled to make their first pay disclosures under the revised EEO-1 report by March 31, 2018
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued its decision in the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania (application no. 61496/08) on September 5, an appeal from a determination by the Romanian courts upholding an employee’s termination for personal use of the employer’s computer system.
The U.S. Supreme Court term that ended June 2017 included a number of decisions important to workplace law. The Court produced nearly unanimous decisions, and maintained predictability and stability, in important areas such as class-action lawsuits, immigration, and ERISA. In these cases, the justices agreed that the letter of the law and the clear Congressional intent when passing the law weighed in favor of maintaining the status quo.
USA: New guidance explaining the criteria for visa applicants was issued by the Department of State to U.S. embassies and consulates late on June 28, 2017. The guidance is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2017, partial reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s revised Executive Order (dated March 6, 2017).
U.S. (June 2017): Plaintiffs may not voluntarily dismiss their class action claims upon receiving an adverse class certification decision and subsequently invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the general rule that appeals can be taken only from a final judgment, to appeal the decision as a matter of right, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. Microsoft Corporation v. Baker, No. 15-457 (June 12, 2017).