In our sister blog, Privacy and Security Matters, Cynthia Larose and Brian Lam discuss a new California privacy law passed on June 28, 2018 — the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The new law creates broad consumer rights regarding their personal information, including a private right of action and statutory penalties. The law specifically provides protections for “employment-related information.”
Over the past several years, health care entities have increasingly become the target of private and government plaintiffs complaining of disability discrimination. A crescendo of litigation has engulfed the health care industry—and most notably of late, “drive-by” litigation attacking the perceived failure of health care entity facilities and websites to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Read the full article below or here: The Rising Tide of ADA Litigation Against Health Care Entities (©Copyright 2018, American Health Lawyers Association, Washington, DC. Reprint permission granted.)
Join us in a discussion on the increasingly complex landscape of employee misclassification as we explore best practices to help your company avoid the costly pitfalls and time consuming litigation that can result from this expensive mistake.
On Wednesday this week, all nine justices agreed that the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In other words, making only internal complaints does not shroud an employee in whistleblower protection under the Dodd-Frank Act.
In the case of DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC, the Third Circuit ruled for the first time that the more demanding “but for” causation standard applies to retaliation claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), rejecting the lower “motivating factor” (also commonly known as the “mixed-motive”) standard. The Third Circuit’s ruling is a welcome result, especially for employers who deal with the federal government and may, therefore, be exposed to FCA retaliation claims. But, employers need to be mindful that different causes of action have different causation standards. For example, the more stringent “but for” standard applied by the Third Circuit to FCA retaliation claims also applies in Title VII retaliation and ADEA cases, but the lower “mixed motive” standard applies in other cases, including “status based” Title VII and ADA discrimination claims. So, employers are left with a mishmash of different causation standards to consider when assessing risk around employment decisions and defending cases.
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…
California’s PAGA Saga continues with a pair of recently issued appellate decisions impacting these legally created class action-like lawsuits.
Congress adopted the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) to provide job security for employees who must miss work due to their own serious health condition, the birth of their children, to care for family members suffering from a serious health condition or for reasons related to their family members’ military service. One of the most vexing issues for employers trying to comply with the FMLA is “intermittent” or “reduced-schedule” leave.
In today’s global economy, the landscape surrounding immigration issues is becoming increasingly complex. Penalties for violations of federal and state immigration rules extend beyond civil fines to more serious consequences, including but not limited to, criminal liability. Now more than ever companies must stay ahead of the latest in immigration law and compliance. In a three-part webinar series, Mintz Levin’s Immigration Practice aims to arm employers with best practices and tools regarding compliance in key areas of immigration law.
Part I: I-9 Compliance and Best Practices — Monday, May 8, 2017
Part II: E-Verify Compliance and Best Practices — Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Part III: Wages, Recordkeeping, and Job Changes – Compliance in Employment-Based Immigration — Thursday, June 22, 2017
Don’t wait, register for all or any combination of webinars in the Immigration Webinar Series starting May 8, 2017!
It’s been a terrific run. A real Cinderella story. Who would have thought that a little blog out of the northeast region could make so much noise in the thought leadership world?! We learned a lot along the way and we hope you did too. While we celebrate by cutting down the (inter)net (or better yet, by removing the keys from our keyboard), here’s a quick recap of where we’ve been: