<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
    
    <channel>
    
    <title>Employment Law Forums</title>
    <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/</link>
    <description>Employment Law Forums</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2010</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2010-02-12T17:58:25-05:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <item>
      <title>FMLA &#45; return to light duty after FMLA</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/105/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/105/#When:18:07:42Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;We have an employee who&#8217;s requesting a &#8220;shortened&#8221; shift and light duty when they return from FMLA.&amp;nbsp; The shortened hours ( those not worked) will be counted as FMLA hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;nbsp; &lt;br /&gt;
Our problem is that this employee handles a public desk.&amp;nbsp; The short shift is typically 4 hours.&amp;nbsp; They want to work only 2 hours.&amp;nbsp; We would then be required to impose a hardship on another staff member by scheduling them for only 2 hours on the desk.&amp;nbsp; For the remaining 2 hours of the returning employees shift they would like &#8220;light duty&#8221; assignments.&amp;nbsp; We aren&#8217;t even certain that we have 2 hours of light duty every shift that we could assign.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Legally,&amp;nbsp; do we have to allow them to return to work since it&#8217;s not in our best interest and will create a hardship for other employees?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2010-02-11T18:07:42-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Medical Marijuana</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/104/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/104/#When:18:25:41Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I&#8217;m in Colorado and as I understand it, the CO Constitution permitting possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes does not mean that employees can use at work or that they can come to work impaired by lawful use.&amp;nbsp; A drug testing policy still stands and if an employee were to test positive he or she could still be disciplined or terminated for violating your requirements.&amp;nbsp; Those are the main issues employers are asking about, but I am sure that some of you can think of other issues I should be aware of.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Linda Konstan
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2010-01-27T18:25:41-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Out of Country Request for FMLA</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/103/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/103/#When:23:43:52Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;We have an employee who has requested FMLA for 12&#45;weeks to care for her ill mother who lives out of the U.S. in the Philippines.&lt;br /&gt;
Are we obligated to grant her leave if she meets the 1&#45;year, 1250 hour eligibility requirements?&amp;nbsp;  &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/images/smileys/confused.gif&quot; width=&quot;19&quot; height=&quot;19&quot; alt=&quot;confused&quot; style=&quot;border:0;&quot; /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2010-01-26T23:43:52-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Question about paid/unpaid scheduled/unscheduled leave policies</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/102/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/102/#When:12:21:30Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;My company has a policy which I&#8217;m being told is fairly standard practice.&amp;nbsp; But in all my research I&#8217;m not finding that this is the case.&amp;nbsp; The long and short of it is this&#8230;&amp;nbsp; For unscheduled leave, we allow an employee to call in on the day of unscheduled leave and request that the day counts as 8 hours of vacation, and thus they get paid.&amp;nbsp; We also count the day as an &#8220;occurrence,&#8221; or a full unexcused absence.&amp;nbsp; Is this common practice?&amp;nbsp; Any and all comments are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks, J
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2010-01-21T12:21:30-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>GINA Poster &#45; Separate Offense&#63;</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/101/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/101/#When:11:46:27Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know what constitutes a separate offense for failure to comply with the requirement to post the new EEOC poster in a conspicuous location (Nov. 21, 2009)?&amp;nbsp; Is the statutory penalty assessed for each employer site that fails to comply a single time, or can the penalty continue to accrue based on failure to comply?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jonathan F. Cohen, Esq.&lt;br /&gt;
APRUZZESE, McDERMOTT, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;nbsp;   MASTRO &amp;amp; MURPHY, P.C.&lt;br /&gt;
Somerset Hills Corporate Center&lt;br /&gt;
25 Independence Boulevard&lt;br /&gt;
P.O. Box 112&lt;br /&gt;
Liberty Corner, NJ 07938&lt;br /&gt;
Tele: (908) 580&#45;1776&lt;br /&gt;
Fax: (908) 647&#45;1492&lt;br /&gt;
email:&amp;nbsp; cohen at ammm dot com&lt;br /&gt;
website: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ammm.com&quot;&gt;http://www.ammm.com&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2009-11-12T11:46:27-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>on&#45;boarding</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/98/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/98/#When:13:43:46Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I have been researching various Hr software packages and notice that several have an On&#45;boarding features that allows the new employer to complete task such as filling out w&#45;4, I&#45;9, insurance and sexual harassment training prior to their first day of work. My question should these task be paid? My guess would be that some of these task, such as sexual harassment training are for the benefit of the company and should be. Has any one come across any rulings on this? I would think that if putting on safety equipment for the job has to be paid, so should some of these task.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2009-09-24T13:43:46-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Federal W&amp;amp;H Lawsuit for Max $3K in back wages</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/94/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/94/#When:17:06:15Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Why would a plaintiff attorney file a W&amp;amp;H lawsuit for what would result in a maximum of $3,000 in unpaid overtime? &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Former employee was fired after 15 months of service for stealing cash receipts &#45; caught red handed with the money. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Was an exempt assisant manager. Even if he can prove that he was misclassified and should have been non&#45;exempt, the max of unpaid overtime would be about $3K as the client uses the flexible work week method for calculating overtime. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This does not pass my common sense test and is beyond being frivilous. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Never mind the common sense test comment &#45; I should not be surprised as I have been doing this stuff for a long time.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2009-05-25T17:06:15-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>401k fees</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/96/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/96/#When:15:11:35Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I am looking to change my 401k provider.&amp;nbsp; I have a new benefits broker and they are recommending the change.&amp;nbsp; However I have concerns that the new 401k provider is charging the employee&#8217;s higher fees.&amp;nbsp; The new investments are currently performing better then the current investment, so for right now the employee should benefit.&amp;nbsp; My concern is that investment perfomance today is not what it will be in the future and because of the higher fees, it will cost my employees.&amp;nbsp; I not sure if I am doing my due diligence of operating the plan to the best benefit of my employees by switching to a plan that charge higher fees.&amp;nbsp; I have seen a lot of law suits regarding fees and lack of due diligence and I am kind of worry. Should I be?
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2009-09-16T15:11:35-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Provisional Employees after City of Long Beach</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/97/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/97/#When:21:43:27Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I wanted to find out if there are any rights besides &#8216;name clearing&#8217; hearing at the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings that provisional employees can invoke to receive contractual disciplinary due process. I did some digging and found a legislative bill 6495 signed into law by Spitzer after City of Long Beach, which indicates that given the unique nature of NYC, temporary disciplinary rights will remain in force for provisional employees during the 5 year period where DCAS will implement more examinations so that these individuals could obtain permanent Civil Service status. Did I miss something? Looking for input.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank You.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2009-09-17T21:43:27-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>FLSA Question: Invalidating a Belo Agreement&#63;</title>
      <link>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/95/</link>
      <guid>http://www.elinfonet.com/blog/index/forums/viewthread/95/#When:18:30:47Z</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I ran into an interesting wage and hour question.&amp;nbsp; The client wants to know if paying per&#45;case bonuses or quarterly bonuses based on work accomplished (non&#45;discretionary) would violate an employee&#8217;s &#8216;Belo&#8217; agreement.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If employees are covered under a &#8216;Belo&#8217; agreement, 29 C.F.R. 778.408(d) states that &#8220;the payment of compensation, over and above the guaranteed amount&#8230;year&#45;end bonuses and similar payments which are not regularly paid as part of the employee&#8217;s usual wages, will not invalidate a contract which otherwise qualifies under section 7(f).&#8221;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It also says in the regulation in subpart (c) that payment of regular bonuses should be included in the regular rate used in the Belo agreement.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thus, if an employer pays employees under a Belo agreement a non&#45;discretionary, quarterly, bonus, in addition to the rate in the agreement, do folks on here think that the Belo agreements may become invalidated?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Any help would be greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jonathan F. Cohen, Esq.&lt;br /&gt;
APRUZZESE, McDERMOTT, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;nbsp;   MASTRO &amp;amp; MURPHY,&lt;br /&gt;
P.C.&lt;br /&gt;
Somerset Hills Corporate Center&lt;br /&gt;
25 Independence Boulevard&lt;br /&gt;
P.O. Box 112&lt;br /&gt;
Liberty Corner, NJ 07938&lt;br /&gt;
Tele: (908) 580&#45;1776&lt;br /&gt;
Fax: (908) 647&#45;1492&lt;br /&gt;
email:&amp;nbsp; cohen at ammm dot com
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <dc:date>2009-08-31T18:30:47-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>