Employment Law Information Network
Google
 
Web www.elinfonet.com
Main Navigation
Federal Law Articles
State Law Articles
HR Newsletter
HR Guidebook
HR Policy
HR Seminars
Employment Contracts
Employment Law Forums
Employment Law Blog
Employment Laws
Employee Rights
Workplace Headlines
Federal Article Feeds Federal Article Feeds
State Article Feeds State Article Feeds
Get Our FREE Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Email:
Over 8,300 Subscribers! More Information

Friday, March 28, 2008

Week In Review (March 28, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=12959”>Employer Immigration Alert - H-1B Visas.</A>
Employers—please note that all petitions for new H-1B visas should be fi led with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) on APRIL 1, 2008 to ensure that they have a chance of being adjudicated. As you know, the U.S. government limits the number of new H-1B visas for professionals to 65,000 each year, with limited exceptions. Last year, 124,000 H-1B petitions were received between April 1 and April 3, forcing USCIS to develop a lottery selection process to determine which petitions would be adjudicated.
Located On: Vedder Price

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Georgia Court of Appeals Reiterates Narrow Scope of Non-Solicitation Clauses.</A>
In a recent opinion, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s decision to uphold the validity of non-solicitation and non-compete clauses in an employment agreement. The appellate court’s reversal of the trial court decision was premised on a strict reading of Georgia case law that delineates the permissible scope of non-solicitation clauses.
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Here’s why young folks leave jobs[/url]
Post and Courier - March 24, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 03/28 at 10:16 AM
Week in Review • (0) CommentsPermalink

Friday, March 21, 2008

Week In Review (March 21, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=12910”>Lawyers as Employers- Part 1.</A>
Lawyers are focused on the demands of practicing law and running their practices. Often, they do not have time to dedicate to managing their employees. And, in fact, some lawyers may not see themselves as employers. However, the success of any business, including law firms, is tied directly to its employees. Competent and professional employees are critical to a firm’s ability to produce quality work and keep good clients.
Located On: Nexsen Pruet

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Indiana Joins the List of States Providing Legal Protections to Nursing Mothers At the Workplace.</A>
Returning to work is often cited as one of the main reasons that nursing mothers discontinue breastfeeding. Now, a growing number of states - in recognition of the health benefits of breastfeeding for the nursing mother and child - have passed specific laws giving nursing mothers the right to breastfeed and/or express breast milk in the workplace. In the past year alone, the following jurisdictions became breastfeeding-friendly for working mothers: the District of Columbia, Montana (public employers only), New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. Wyoming and Arkansas passed general laws in 2007 stating that a mother has a right to breastfeed an infant child in any public places where the mother may legally be or where others are present, which does not expressly specify, but could be interpreted to include, places of employment.
Located On: Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]10+ things you should do when you resign[/url]

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 03/21 at 12:33 PM
Week in Review • (0) CommentsPermalink

Friday, March 07, 2008

Week In Review (March 6, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=12749”>LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc. Supreme Court Establishes Fiduciary Liability in the Context of Individual Account Plans.</A>
Last week, the United States Supreme Court expanded the remedies available for fiduciary breach claims brought under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. Under a long-standing decision (Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell), any relief granted for fiduciary breach was required to benefit the entire plan, rather than an individual participant. In the context of investment-related breaches, the “entire plan” rule effectively limited fiduciary claims to defined benefit and similar insurance plans, under which all benefits are funded from a common asset pool. In LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., the Supreme Court for the first time acknowledged the current preponderance of defined contribution or individual account plans, such as 401(k) plans. The Court concluded that the “entire plan” rule should not be construed to preclude relief for fiduciary breach when a participant’s “plan” is effectively an account balance. Citing ERISA Section 404(c) as support, the Court noted that Congress must have intended fiduciaries of individual account plans to be liable for breach in the investment context.
Located On: Phelps Dunbar LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New York’s Highest Court Addresses Mandatory Service Charges.</A>
According to New York state’s highest court, under the state’s wage and hour law, an employer cannot withhold from its employees any portion of a mandatory service charge that is added to a customer’s bill unless the employer makes it clear to the customer that it is retaining some or all of the charge.
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Want a Better Job or Higher Salary? Live Here[/url]
ABC News - March 03, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 03/07 at 08:52 AM
Employment Law • (0) CommentsPermalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
 
Terms of Use  |  Privacy  |  Advertising  |  About  |  Contact  |  For Law Firms  |  Partners

Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.

The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.

This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations.  As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law.  None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice.  The information should not be relied upon for legal advice.  We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created.  Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege.  If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area.  If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association.

All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners.