The Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 was recently signed into law creating two important changes in executive compensation, which we outline below.
Jessica Catlow is a Member in the firm’s New York office. She regularly advises employers on their employment practices and policies, and represents employers and executives in executive compensation matters relating to corporate transactions. She drafts and negotiates executive compensation and equity arrangements, and represents employers involved in litigation related to claims of violation of state and federal antidiscrimination and wage laws, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements.
We have been following the high-publicity battle between Uber and Lyft, on the one hand, and the drivers on the other, over whether the drivers are properly classified as independent contractors. Uber and Lyft argue they are mere technology companies facilitating the connections between drivers and would-be passengers. The drivers say they are employees of the companies because the companies exercise significant control over how they provide the taxi services. However, it appears that disputes over proper classification of taxi drivers are not unique to Uber and Lyft.
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code precludes the deduction by public companies for compensation paid to certain covered employees in excess of $1,000,000 in any taxable year. This limitation on deduction does not apply to performance-based compensation. Such performance-based compensation is deductible so long as the following requirements are met:
Following a number of other localities, the City of Philadelphia has enacted the Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces law requiring certain employers located in the city to provide employees with up to 40 hours of paid sick time in a calendar year. Here are the 15 things you should know about this law:
Disruptive “technology” companies Uber and Lyft were back in court recently doing their best to ensure their business models are not upended by a ruling that their drivers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. On back to back January days, federal courts in California heard arguments from Uber, Lyft, and their drivers as the respective parties all seek to convince the court to rule in their favor over the proper classification.
We have written before about the EEOC’s increased focus on the potential disparate impact of employers’ use of background checks in screening applicants for employment, and of a recent federal appeals court decision that put up a significant road block in the EEOC’s efforts to prove disparate impact caused by credit checks as a screening tool. While not the basis of the court’s decision, the court did note that the EEOC ran the very same type of credit checks on its employees. Unfortunately for the EEOC, it is also facing additional road blocks because of its own policies: defendant employers are accusing the EEOC of throwing stones in the proverbial glass house.