Menu

The End of the Saga of DOL's Proposed Changes to FLSA Overtime Rules?

For nearly four years, proposed Department of Labor (DOL) rule changes that would expand the number of workers eligible for overtime wages have remained in limbo. The latest twist in this long-standing saga came last week, when the DOL published a new "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" (NPRM), which sets a new salary threshold for overtime pay at $679 per week ($35,308 per year). Under these proposed rules, any salaried employee earning less than that amount, will be entitled to overtime for the hours the employee works beyond forty (40) in a week. More ›

It's Legal—Local Ordinances Can Raise Minimum Wage Above Minnesota State Statute

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that a Minneapolis ordinance raising the minimum wage did not conflict with—and was not impliedly preempted by—state statute, clearing the path for a rise in minimum wages in the municipality. (Graco, Inc., et al. v. City of Minneapolis, Case No. A18-0593). While review may still be sought at the Minnesota Supreme Court, employers in Minneapolis should continue complying with the ordinance's minimum wage requirements. More ›

Minimum Wage in Illinois Set to Nearly Double by 2025

Employers in Illinois will be dealing with double digit minimum wage increases over the next several years, after Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed "The Lifting Up Illinois Working Families Act" into law. More ›

It's Risky Business for California Employers when Scheduling Employees On-Call

In Skylar Ward v. Tilly's Inc., the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal for the State of California found, in a split decision, that employees who were required to call in two hours before a scheduled on-call shift in order to confirm their shift, should be compensated under laws governing "reporting time pay." This decision should remind California employers of the need to compensate on-call employees consistent with the Labor Code, Wage Orders, and any other applicable laws. Employers should also consider that—pursuant to the majority opinion in Ward v. Tilly—requiring employees to call in ahead of on-call shifts amounts to asking them to report to work and they should be compensated for this time. More ›

Employers Need to Go Back to the Drawing Board for Their Wellness Program Incentives

Many employers incorporate wellness programs into their group health plans. Studies indicate that such programs, which can provide incentives to employees to encourage healthy behaviors, are offered by more than half of all employers who sponsor a health plan. More ›

EEOC Announces EEO-1 Survey Deadline Extension Due to Government Shutdown

The recent federal government shutdown left the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) mostly shuttered. As a result, the commission has announced an extension of the 2018 EEO-1 reporting period deadline to May 31, 2019. The online reporting period will begin in early March, although the exact opening date has yet to be announced. Employers can visit the EEOC website for updates. More ›

Applicants Not Protected by ADEA's Disparate Impact Theory, According to 7th Circuit

In a split decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held en banc that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) protections against disparate impact age discrimination do not extend to applicants. Rather, they apply only to employees. More ›

Following Supreme Court Decision, It's High Time for Illinois Employers to Review Workplace Biometric Privacy Issues

With the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruling that employees need not plead or prove a traditional injury or adverse harm in order to prosecute a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) (see, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Jan. 25, 2019)), the time is now for Illinois employers to review their workplace policies for biometric privacy issues. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Mandatory Arbitration, Holds Transportation Workers Exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act

The United States Supreme Court recently handed workers a rare victory in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. The Supreme Court ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce—including those labeled as independent contractors—are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and thus cannot be compelled to undergo mandatory arbitration.  As a result of this decision, employers in the transportation industry will have to review their existing arbitration policies and assess whether or not they comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. More ›

District Court Judge Stops HHS Regulations Regarding Contraception Mandate

When Congressional drafters wrote the Affordable Care Act 10 years ago, they included a provision requiring group health plans to provide preventive care without cost sharing. Much of that coverage requirement was set forth in the Act itself with some specificity. It included immunizations, screenings, and other “evidence-based items or services” recommended by the United States Preventive Services Tax Force. The Act also provided for special rules for preventive care “with respect to women;” however, those rules were not specified in the Act and were to be determined by a government agency. After the law safely passed, the Health Resources and Services Administration, acting on the findings of the Institute of Medicine, decided that preventive care with respect to women must include coverage for contraceptive services without cost sharing. In the decade since that provision became law, plan sponsors have been dealing with nearly constant administrative and judicial pinball regarding this contentious topic. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email

Blog Editors