You may have heard that the concept of joint employment is getting its share of recent attention. First, the NLRB got involved, with its decision in Browning-Ferris industries, which we wrote about here. OSHA and the EEOC have been poking around in the area, too. Now, it appears to be the Department of Labor’s turn.
When dealing with their employees’ needs for accommodations due to religious, disability, or family leave reasons, it’s necessary for employers to know some personal information about their employees. But, simply asking for information can be considered a violation of certain employment laws. What’s an employer to do?
This blog post is part one of a six part series on the impact the Uber business model is having on employment laws across the nation.
Have you Ubered? If you haven’t, then you should try it before you weigh in on whether it is a good or bad thing. At its most basic, Uber is an alternative to calling a cab (and there are progressively pricier and flashier versions of Uber if you prefer to travel in style). All you do to Uber is download an app to your smartphone, provide your credit card information, and then request a ride. Uber has conducted background checks and insurance checks on folks who use their personal vehicles to pick you up and take you to your destination. No cash is exchanged. The cost of the ride is charged to the credit card on file.
Like it or not, winter has finally arrived. During times of snowy and icy road conditions, employers will undoubtedly be faced with tardiness, absenteeism, and the possibility of implementing office and/or plant closures. One question that often arises during inclement weather is how to handle pay issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). If you find yourself in that boat snowmobile, read on!
The legal concept of joint employment has been buzzing in 2015, and a new opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit – covering primarily Pennsylvania and New Jersey – recently addressed the issue. As those who read this blog regularly know, the Fourth Circuit addressed the question a few months ago, which we discussed here, and back in August, the National Labor Relations Board issued its much-discussed Browning-Ferris ruling, which we discussed here.
Whether 2015 was good, bad, or ugly for you, 2016 is here, offering a clean slate of opportunity. Whether you want to improve your health, your relationships, or your professional life, the first step is to make a New Year’s resolution. A true New Year’s resolution is much more than a well-intentioned plan that you consider in the abstract during the serenity of your commute, between the craziness of work and home; it is something you are committed to – something you put into action and see to its completion – despite resulting difficulty.
Here’s to the bright New Year,
and a fond farewell to the old;
here’s to the things that are yet to come,
and to the memories that we hold.”
The New Year is often a time to reflect on the past year and to set resolutions for the coming one. Not only is this a perfect time to work on personal growth, but it is also the perfect time to work on how you manage your relationship with your employees. Here are five considerations as you enter the New Year:
Recently, the EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which would amend the regulations implementing Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) as they relate to employer wellness programs that are part of group health plans. This NPRM related to GINA is an encore, of sorts, to the regulations the Commission proposed earlier this year in the area of wellness programs as they related to the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently decided that restrictive covenants not to compete are unenforceable if entered into during employment and not supported by “new and valuable” consideration (which does not include continued employment). Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc. held that a mid-employment non-compete agreement may be challenged for lack of consideration even if the agreement, by its express terms, indicates that the parties “intend to be legally bound” pursuant to the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”), 33 P.S. § 6. The UWOA provides that a written promise “shall not be invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express statement, in any form of language, that the signer intends to be legally bound.”
“For, although common Snarks do no manner of harm, Yet, I feel it my duty to say, Some are Boojums –.” So goes the warning in Lewis Carroll’s 1876 poem The Hunting of the Snark. In the poem, a hunting party pursues the harmless Snark but is warned along the way that some Snarks are actually highly dangerous Boojums. If one meets a Boojum, he will “never be met with again!” At the conclusion of the story, one member of the crew believes he has found a Snark and calls out to his friends – but when they arrive, they find that he has vanished without a trace, “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”