Friday, July 27, 2007

Week In Review (July 27, 2007)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

Recent Cases Impact Common Workplace Policies (pdf)
Under recent case law, policies about common workplace issues such as confidentiality, complaints, solicitation, and fraternization may violate employee rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) - regardless of whether the employees belong to a union.
Located On: Nexsen Pruet

Most Popular State Law Article

California Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Regulations To Go Into Effect.
After nearly three years of drafts, debates, and delays, extensive regulations implementing California’s mandatory sexual harassment prevention training for supervisors, Assembly Bill 1825 (AB 1825), were finally approved. The final regulations become effective on August 17, 2007.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

Guest column: Mistakes to avoid when rating employees
Green Bay Press Gazette - July 23, 2007

Friday, July 20, 2007

Week In Review (July 20, 2007)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

United States Supreme Court Employment Law Decisions 2006-2007.
The United States Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases during the 2006 Term. The Court’s opinions address a number of topics, from the statute of limitations in cases alleging discriminatory pay practices, to the exempt status of home care aides under U.S. Department of Labor regulations. There presently are three important cases on the docket for next Term, summarized below. The Court may add more cases to the docket as the new Term approaches in October 2007).
Located On: Shaw Valenza LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

Texas Employees May Be Required to Defend Non-Compete Claims In Other States.
In another favorable opinion for employers seeking to enforce non-compete agreements against former employees, the Texas Supreme Court has held that case law barring Texas courts from invoking another state’s law to interpret a Texas employee’s non-compete agreement does not invalidate a clause saying that any lawsuits involving the agreement will be brought in a specified court of another state.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

Bias Suit Slaps Law Firm’s In-House Inter-Lewds
New York Post - July 16, 2007

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

World Scene Provides Archetypes of Negotiators

The current cast of negotiators involved in the Middle East conflict provides archetypes that can be instructive when considering the appropriate players to send to a mediation of an employment dispute. For example, should you send someone to the table like President Bush who is known for his resolute, confident, almost theological certainty of positions on issues? Or someone like Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a subject matter expert and an artful conversationalist, whose appointment as Special Envoy signals the significance of the Western powers’ desire for peace in the region. Then there is Palestinian President Abbas who desires peace but seems to lack authority from his constituents. One might also consider the model of Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a staunch Zionist who sees claims to land rooted in a biblical Jewish heritage, but nevertheless recognizes that to resolve conflict, “What we have to decide about is not history but the future.” The New York Times Magazine (7/8/07 at 70). Thus, when choosing who will represent your side at the bargaining table, examine closely his or her familiarity with the nature of the dispute, the scope and nature of his or her authority, the spokesperson’s ability to see all sides of an issue, and whether he or she can leave behind the past for the sake of a more certain future.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Week In Review (July 13, 2007)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

Health Benefit Cards: New Rules for 2008 and Beyond (pdf).
The IRS recently issued two pieces of much anticipated follow-up guidance to its original electronic payment card ("Card") guidance for health benefit cards. This guidance will substantially impact how health benefit cards are administered in 2008 and beyond to access funds in a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). [Distributions from health savings accounts (HSAs) are not subject to the substantiation and other requirements discussed herein; so HSA benefit cards need not follow these rules.] Indeed, the IRS guidance shifts the paradigm from TPA-based adjudication to merchant-administered adjudication with the IRS’ approval of a merchant-based inventory information approval system (or “IIAS"). This advisory tracks through the IRS guidance and describes what’s permissible (and what’s not) under the new guidance.
Located On: Alston & Bird LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Reform Signed Into Law (pdf).
On July 25, 2007, Governor Sanford signed a bill that makes a number of changes to South Carolina workers’ compensation system. Most of the changes apply to claims for injuries occuring on or after July 1, 2007.
Located On: Nexsen Pruet

Most Popular Headlines

‘Business casual’ causes confusion
USA Today - July 10, 2007

Friday, July 06, 2007

Week In Review (July 6, 2007)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

Workplace Bullying and the Future of the “Equal Opportunity Harasser”.
Everyone is familiar with the “mean” boss: a chef who yells at the line cooks in the middle of a busy rush, a manager who becomes angry when a deadline is not met, and a boss who criticizes a poor performer in front of other workers. There historically has been a legal distinction between a “hostile working environment” and mere hostility at work. The courts have ruled that anti-discrimination laws are not a “civility code.” Judicial opinions frequently say the law does not guarantee a utopian working environment, free from stress and conflict.
Located On: Shaw Valenza LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

Employer’s Incentive Plan Violates South Carolina Wage Act.
A state appellate court recently ruled that an employer which made incentive plan payouts to employees on dates different than the general target payout dates set forth in the plan violated the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act’s requirement that employers specify the “time and place of payment” of wages. According to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, providing estimated “target dates” of payment, which the employer later admitted served “no purpose whatsoever” and were used only as a general guide, does not give employees sufficient notice. 
Located On: Ogletree Deakins

Most Popular Headlines

Woman Says She Was Fired For Seeing Illicit Affair
WJZ - July 03, 2007