join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Federal Court Finds Telephonic Access Could Be an Alternative to Website Accessibility

Ogletree Deakins • October 20, 2017
A federal district court in Los Angeles last week endorsed the possibility that a business may be able to avoid making a website accessible if it provides the same goods and services through telephonic customer service. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in Gorecki v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01138-PSG-AGR (October 10, 2017), found that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had mentioned this alternative to website compliance in its 2010 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. But the court denied Dave & Buster’s motion for summary judgment because it had not established beyond factual dispute that its website direction, which stated, “If You Are Using A Screen Reader and Are Having Problems Using This Website, Please Call (888) 300-1515 For Assistance.,” was itself accessible to screen reading software.

Beltway Buzz, October 20, 2017

Ogletree Deakins • October 20, 2017
Deal or No Deal? Bipartisan ACA Agreement Faces Challenges. A bipartisan agreement forged by senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) that would temporarily restore funding for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) is in limbo, already generating supporters and detractors—and mixed signals from the president.

Trump’s Third Travel Ban Blocked By Federal Court

Fisher Phillips • October 20, 2017
For the third time this year, a federal district court has blocked a presidential travel ban from taking effect. Judge Derrick K. Watson, from the District of Hawaii, today granted a motion for a temporary restraining order that bars the federal government from enforcing President Trump’s September 24 travel ban (Travel Ban 3.0) on a national level, once again setting up a showdown at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Higher They Are, The Harder You Fall

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 20, 2017
You don’t need to be a cable news network, a Hollywood production company, a media mogul or a politician in order to feel the ripple effect from the recent wave of workplace sexual harassment claims. While such harassment claims might not always make the nightly news, they are nothing new and they impact every sector of employment. With the current flurry of high-profile harassment claims attracting media attention regardless of the industry, employers should prepare for an increase in claims.

IRS Publishes Pension Plan Limitations for 2018

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 20, 2017
On October 19, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) announced cost of living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for pension plans and other retirement-related items for the 2018 tax year. The list below details some of the key limit increases and those limits which remain unchanged effective January 1, 2018:

New Law Governs Immigrant Worksite Enforcement Actions in California

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 20, 2017
On October 5, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”), imposing new requirements for public and private employers regarding immigration worksite enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).1 Generally, unless otherwise required by federal law, AB 450 prohibits employers from consenting to ICE access to worksites and employee records in certain circumstances; requires employers to provide specified notices to current employees and any authorized representative regarding ICE inspection of employment records; and expressly prohibits employers from re-verifying a current employee’s employment eligibility when not otherwise required by federal law. This new law takes effect on January 1, 2018.

High Alert for California Employers and Employers Nationwide for the Second Wave of FCRA Class Actions

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 20, 2017
The flurry of Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) class actions against employers started in or about 2012 and was not limited to California.1 Many of those lawsuits resulted in significant payouts for violations of one or more of the FCRA’s no-harm, hyper-technical requirements. The U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on Article III standing and “concrete injury-in-fact” (Spokeo) has helped employers slow down, but not stop, the FCRA juggernaut.2 Employers across the U.S., and particularly in California, should remain vigilant about their compliance with the FCRA and related state laws.3 The dozens of class action filings in California make the threat even more acute in the Golden State.4
Our Members
Become A Member