Governor Jerry Brown has signed the New Parent Leave Act, which will become effective January 1, 2018 and requires California employers with 20 to 49 employees within 75 miles to provide up to 12-weeks of job-protected unpaid parental leave. We summarize the new law below.
California has joined a growing list of jurisdictions, including New York City, Massachusetts, Delaware and Oregon, among others, banning salary history inquiries from job applicants. Governor Brown signed the law into effect last week and it becomes effective on January 1, 2018.
Employers often struggle over compliance with state wage deduction laws, and these potential violations carry with them considerable penalties. In Massachusetts, for example, employers face triple damages for violations of wage and hour laws. This post uses hypothetical examples to demonstrate how narrow the range of permissible activity is under California, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington D.C. laws even when a deduction to an employee’s salary appears as a common sense one or otherwise fair to both parties involved. Employers with employees located in these and other states should consult with legal counsel before making any deductions from employee wages, even if the employee authorizes such a deduction.
So, for example, can employers deduct from employee wages for the cost of uniforms? Personal expenses on corporate credit cards? Broken printers? Let’s explore…
Beginning on January 1, 2018, New York employers will have to provide paid family leave to their employees. With less than 3 months to go, the law is already in effect in many ways and employers are strongly urged to take steps now to ensure that they are ready to roll come January 1st. This post provides an overview for employers to better understand their obligations under New York’s new Paid Family Leave law (PFL) and its accompanying regulations (which are available here and here) including implementing new policies and administering claims. Continue Reading New York Paid Family Leave Law – A Comprehensive Breakdown for Employers
In recent weeks, the Trump Administration has been considering allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines and expanding access to “Association Health Plans” (AHPs) that could take economic advantage of cross-border purchasing. President Trump is expected to issue an executive order this week to make that happen without legislation.
This post addresses the key issue of whether the administration has the authority under existing law to act on its own initiative, and in doing so, it will address the seminal legal issues affecting AHPs under federal and state law. As explained below, we conclude that the administration has some—and perhaps even ample—authority to act without Congress, and that any legal constraints will depend on how the AHPs are structured.
The blood remaining in the umbilical cord after childbirth contains stems cells which may be used in a variety of medical treatments. Many parents of newborns are seeking to save this “cord blood”, either with the hopes of curing known ailments, as insurance against future illnesses, or for use in yet-to-be-discovered therapies.
My internet surfing (assign whatever level of reliability you see fit) reveals that cord blood storage costs about $1000-2000 for the initial collection and $150-$250 per year for the storage. Perhaps not insurmountable in a vacuum, but more prohibitive when added to all the other costs of having children (Diapers! Clothes! Lessons! Child care! Downloads! Theme parks in Florida!). So it’s no surprise that many employees are wondering – can I pay for cord blood storage with the money in my health reimbursement account (HRA), health care flexible spending account (FSA) or health savings account (HSA)?
Beginning on October 31st, New York City employers will be prohibited from inquiring about or relying on salary history during the hiring process. As a reminder, this ban makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, employment agency, or employee or agent of the employer to: (1) inquire about the salary history of an applicant; or (2) rely on salary history of an applicant to determine salary, benefits, or other compensation for such applicant during the hiring process. Employers should revise their hiring processes in order to comply with the new law as soon as possible.
Recently, the New York City Commission on Human Rights released guidance regarding the ban on salary history inquiries in the form of two “Fact Sheets.” Both Fact Sheets answer the same questions, one from the perspective of employers, the other from the perspective of job applicants. The Fact Sheet for Employers provides the following questions and answers:
Last month, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Estee Lauder in a Pennsylvania federal court alleging that Estee Lauder’s parental leave policy discriminates against employees on the basis of gender by providing unequal benefits to biological mothers and fathers. What’s notable about this lawsuit is that it involves a policy which, on its face, uses a “primary” and “secondary” caregiver distinction that provides different amounts of leave to employees based on that distinction without regard to their gender – a practice used by many employers in their parental leave policies. This lawsuit has left many employers wondering whether such a policy is at risk of being unlawful. We do not think it is at this time.
At this writing, the prospects for success of the latest Republican effort to replace the Affordable Care Act appear bleak—but the Graham-Cassidy bill on which the GOP has pinned its last-ditch hopes highlights a major political and policy flashpoint in the fight to repeal, replace, or repair the law: the degree to which states should be free to innovate and experiment by adopting non-standard health insurance product designs in their individual and small group markets. Under current law, there is little flexibility. Proposals abound to change this, but to do so invites consequences with which lawmakers must be prepared to deal—involving complex economic and actuarial issues and fundamental questions regarding the role of the federal government and the states in health care.
This post addresses these issues.
On Thursday, October 5, 2017, Mintz Levin will host a webinar entitled “Handling Human Resources Data Under Privacy Shield and the GDPR,” which will address EU laws concerning the transfer of employee personal data to the US and the penalties for getting it wrong, which are set to increase dramatically when the GDPR goes into effect in May 2018.
For more information and to register, please click here.