Natalie is an Associate in the firm’s Boston office. Her practice focuses on litigating a wide variety of labor and employment disputes and counseling clients on workplace and employee issues. She represents clients in disputes about non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, discrimination and harassment claims, and wage and hour compliance in state and federal courts, as well as before administrative agencies. She also advises clients on workplace policies, employment agreements, employee classifications and internal workplace investigations.
As reported by our sister blog, Privacy and Security Matters, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a game changer, and it is likely to impact US based companies who do business in the EU, even if they don’t have a office or employees located there. We will present an in-person seminar in Boston (November 28), New York (November 29) and Washington, DC (November 30) to address GDPR compliance. You can register here.
Trick or Treat! This month’s Bubbler is a cauldron full of hot new developments in employment law … the NYC Salary History law is now in effect … California followed suit and its salary history law will take effect on January 1, 2018, just after Delaware and just before Massachusetts … Employers in New York are preparing to implement the new Paid Family Leave law, joining California, New Jersey and Rhode Island as the fourth state to provide this paid leave through employee-paid payroll taxes … The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the class action waiver case … the NYC Council passed a bill to expand the Earned Sick Time Act … and the Third Circuit cited to a Harry Potter novel in an FLSA decision.
Hurricanes. Fires. Floods. Shootings. The evening news seems consistently laden with catastrophe.
In times like these, a federal agency called the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) often springs into action. The NDMS, created in 2002 under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, is a corps of volunteer reservists who perform a variety of disaster-relief services. While NDMS members are often medical clinicians providing health services (including doctors, nurses, paramedics, physician assistants, and pharmacists), teams may also include other non-medical professionals such as logistical specialists, information technologists, fatality management, veterinary professionals, and communication and administrative specialists.
Relevant to employers, NDMS reservists are protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
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…
What is happening in employment law? We will be providing you with quick employment law updates on a bi-monthly basis in a new series called “The Bubbler.” It will let you know what’s what and who’s who in the continually-evolving, ever-important, hard-to-keep-track-of employment law world. The Bubbler delivers current events and other important news to our readers without the time or the interest to piece through the recent legislation, the ever-growing release of regulations and other agency guidance and the lengthy court decisions. We’re your colleagues at the water cooler who tell you just enough to pique your interest (but then provide links to satisfy your curiosity). Enjoy!
Harassment has long been an Achilles’ heel of the workplace. Believe it or not, like the NCAA’s tournament TV ratings, the number of harassment-related lawsuits has held rather steady since the 1990s! And like most NCAA tournament games, the workplace can often be fast-paced and exhilarating, but it requires participants to play by the rules and when conduct goes out of bounds, participants must be benched or even ejected. In this regard, an employer must ensure that it has (1) the right players-personnel; and (2) systems in place not just for a successful season here and there, but for sustainable success over time that allows it to compete for the championship year after year. So what does this look like?
This morning Punxsutawney Phil told us that we are facing six more weeks of winter. Great. We thought it served as a good opportunity to remind employers of the importance of establishing inclement weather policies that are compliant with wage and hour laws for both exempt and non-exempt employees. Here is a quick, yet helpful, Q&A for your reading pleasure:
With Election Day just a week away(!), it’s important that employers familiarize themselves with their employees’ rights to take leave to vote. While there is no Federal law granting employees the right to voting leave, at least half the states provide this right in some form.
Being connected to not just your friends, but their friends and their friends’ friends (it’s all six degrees of separation, right?) means that it’s become increasingly hard to stay anonymous when using an online dating platform. Just ask one recent male user of OkCupid who made vulgar and inappropriate comments to a female user. Her response? Post the conversation and the man’s profile picture to her Facebook account. He insulted her, she publicized him. So far, there are no legal implications.
Her friend, an independent recruiter for tech startups, saw the post and recognized the man’s profile picture. As it turns out, it was also his LinkedIn profile picture, and he had just applied for a position with one of her clients. Her response? Withdraw his application from consideration and tell him to treat women better online. He insulted her friend, she withdrew his application for employment. Here is where the criticism started.
The question: Can a recruiter reject a potential applicant based on inappropriate comments made on a dating site?