Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
With Americans spending more time at work, and with large numbers of women joining the workforce since World War II, the workplace has become a principal place where men and women seek and find their romantic partners, whether for a fling or a long-term relationship ending in marriage. Indeed, by some reports, nearly 60% of employees acknowledge engaging in a workplace romance. At the same time, however, American employers have been tempted to cultivate a near zero-tolerance culture for workplace romance given the development of sexual harassment law and the explosion of discrimination lawsuits alleging harassment. In many ways, it is impracticable for employers to maintain an outright ban on workplace romance: love will find a way, and employees may well hide relationships, which could end up being more problematic for the employer and just as likely to lead to an eventual lawsuit.
Overtime eligibility has developed into a snake pit for employers. The rate of claims for unpaid overtime compensation in court cases and agency proceedings has been increasing faster than that of any other type of employment litigation for several years now. During this period the number of federal overtime collective actions has been more than the number of federal class actions for all types of employment discrimination combined. The cumulative damages awarded to current and former employees for these claims have been enormous.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The American Jobs Creation Act (the "Act") was passed by the House of Representatives on Oct. 7, 2004, and received final approval from the Senate on Oct. 11, 2004. President Bush was expected to sign the Act into law before the end of 2004. The Act enumerates an array of requirements intended to curb perceived abuses in the realm of executive compensation. In many ways, the thrust of the new requirements is to conform a number of aspects of the operation of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements to those applicable to tax-qualified "401(k)" plans. Consequently, to be tax-effective under the new requirements of the Act, deferred compensation arrangements will need to operate in a fashion more akin to true retirement arrangements.
Employment lawyers have been inundated in the last few weeks with calls from clients asking how and whether the new American Jobs Creation Act affects various severance pay plans and other deferred compensation plans. If you are still recovering from the recent presidential election, or are preoccupied by the pending elections in Iraq, this one may have slipped by you. The smart thing to do would be to consult your benefits partner, as I did. In this article, I explain this new law in layman's terms and help you respond to those callers clamoring for information about this creatively titled statute.
Features
National rulings you need to know.
Features
Slightly more than 2% of the lawyers at 23 of New York City's largest firms identify themselves as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to a New York County Lawyers' Association survey. The survey, the first of its kind, also found that the participating firms prohibit discrimination against employees because of their sexual orientation or identity. Those firms also uniformly reported extending family benefits coverage they provide to married couples to same-sex couples registered with the city as domestic partners.
Features
An important representation issue under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) involves scenarios where the scope of a bargaining unit is proposed to include both an employer's regular workers and employees supplied by a separate employer, such as a staffing agency. Just over 4 years ago in <i>M. B. Sturgis</i>, 331 NLRB 1298 (2000), the Board stated that "a growing number of employees who are part of what is commonly described as the 'contingent work force' are being effectively denied representational rights guaranteed them under the National Labor Relations Act." Therefore, the Board majority in <i>Sturgis</i> -- consisting of Chairman Truesdale and Members Fox and Liebman -- overruled prior precedent in <i>Lee Hospital</i>, 300 NLRB 947 (1990) and <i>Greenhoot, Inc.</i>, 205 NLRB 250 (1973), and held that a bargaining unit could include both regular and supplied employees without the consent of both the regular employer and the supplier employer.