Over on our sister blog, Privacy and Security Matters, Cynthia Larose has just published an article that will be of interest to any employer using or considering using biometric identifiers such as fingerprints, facial recognition, or retina scans in connection with employee identification, access and security protocols. The article discusses the recent rash of class action litigation against employers arising out of Illinois’ biometric privacy law. Read the full blog post here.
The Internal Revenue Service has for some time made available a comprehensive set of Questions & Answers covering the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility rules. (These are the rules that are codified in Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code, the compliance with which is reported on IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C, etc.) Entitled, “Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act,” this web-based resource provided generally useful information about how the rules worked. Until recently, however, the IRS’ Questions and Answers merely said that the IRS “expects to publish guidance of general applicability describing the employer shared responsibility payment procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin before sending any letters to ALEs [Applicable Large Employers] regarding the 2015 calendar year” (Q&A 57). On November 2, that changed. This post explains what happened, and what it means for employers.
As a reminder, the NYC law prohibiting employers and their agents from inquiring about or relying on an applicant’s salary history goes into effect today.
This means that as of today, employers cannot:
- Ask for current salary or salary history on an employment application;
- Ask about an applicant’s current or past salary (including wages, benefits, and other compensation);
- Ask an applicant’s current or former employer or a staffing or recruiting agency for information related to an applicant’s current or past salary;
- Search public records or the internet to find or verify an applicant’s current or past salary;
- Rely on information about an applicant’s current or prior salary to set compensation.
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).
As 2017 starts to wind down, Massachusetts employers should start reviewing and revising their employment policies and practices so they are prepared for the Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which goes into effect on April 1, 2018 and requires employers with six or more employees to provide written notice to their employees of their right to be free from pregnancy discrimination.
Recent cases in New York and Pennsylvania demonstrate that, at least in some jurisdictions and under some circumstances, a plaintiff can state a valid claim for unlawful gender discrimination based on a spouse’s jealousy.
On October 13th, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing various federal agencies to consider how to achieve three administration health reform objectives: (1) expand access to Association Health Plans (AHPs); (2) increase the current limits on short-term health insurance; and (3) allow wider use of employer health reimbursement arrangements so employees can buy coverage on their own in the individual market. This post considers what regulatory actions are necessary to accomplish the first objective—expanded access to AHPs.
The federal courts in D.C. have long held that denial of a lateral transfer does not violate Title VII for the reason that, unlike where a promotion is denied, there is no adverse employment action when an employee is denied a purely lateral transfer. A panel of the D.C. Circuit recently decided otherwise where the employee proffered evidence that the employer’s discriminatory denial of his lateral transfer request would have an “adverse impact on the employee’s potential for career advancement.”
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.