For Tax-Exempt Employers: 403(b) Retirement Plan Compliance Opportunity

Tax-exempt employers have a special opportunity to fix compliance concerns with their 403(b) retirement plans. They have through March 31, 2020 – the “Remedial Amendment Period” (RAP) – to retroactively self-correct compliance issues with their 403(b) plan documents, without going through the IRS’ more costly and time-consuming process that would normally be required. An overview of this opportunity is below. Continue Reading

United States Department of Labor Issues Final Rule Concerning Minimum Salary Threshold to Qualify for Exemption from Overtime Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

On March 7, 2019, the United States Department of Labor (“USDOL”) issued its long-awaited proposed rule that would increase the minimum salary threshold to qualify for exemption from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) from their current level of $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $679 per week ($35,308 annually). The proposed rule would also raise the threshold for “highly-compensated employees” from $100,000 annually to $147,414 per year. It is anticipated that the changes will extend overtime coverage to approximately one million United States workers. The proposed rule will be subject to a period of public comment and is anticipated to take effect in January 2020. Continue Reading

I’m Not Paying for That! National Labor Relations Board Increases Rights of Beck Objectors and Further Limits the Activities Unions Can Fund Through Dues Collections

On March 1, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), in a 3-1 decision, ruled that Beck objectors cannot be required to financially support the lobbying efforts of unions because lobbying costs are not chargeable as incurred during a union’s performance of statutory duties as the objectors’ exclusive bargaining agent. United Nurses & Allied Professionals (Kent Hospital), 367 NLRB No. 94 (2019). This decision comes six years after the Board’s first ruling in this case—a ruling in which the Board found that lobbying expenses can be chargeable to Beck objectors under certain circumstances (which was later vacated by the Supreme Court’s 2014 Noel Canning decision)—and represents the Board’s most recent effort to closely scrutinize the dues charged by unions: recall, for example, the Board’s decision in Teamsters Local 75 (Schreiber Foods), 365 NLRB No. 48 (2017), in which the Board held that Teamsters Local 75 violated the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) for failing to provide sufficient information to Beck objectors regarding how it calculated the chargeability and non-chargeability of its own dues expenditures, as well as sufficient information about how it determined the chargeability and non-chargeability of the per capita dues paid to affiliated entities. Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Holds That Statutes Do Not Constitute “Rules or Regulations of the SEC” for Purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Claims

In Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., No. 17-16193, 2019 WL 924827 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that statutes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), do not constitute “rule[s] or regulation[s] of the Securities and Exchange Commission” (“SEC”) for purposes of determining whether an employee engaged in protected activity in a whistleblower claim under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”).  This decision clarifies the proper application of the express statutory language of Section 806. Continue Reading

New Dos and Don’ts: New York City Bans Discrimination Based On Hairstyle

On February 18, 2019, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “NYCCHR”) released new legal enforcement guidance (the “Guidance”) regarding discrimination on the basis of natural hair and hairstyles. In the Guidance, the NYCCHR advised employers that “[t]he New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) protects the rights of New Yorkers to maintain natural hair or hairstyles that are closely associated with their race or identities.” While the NYCCHR made clear that “hair-based discrimination implicates many areas of the NYCHRL, including prohibitions against race, religion, disability, age, or gender-based discrimination,” the Guidance’s directives particularly focus on prohibiting hair and hairstyle discrimination against Black people, defined as “those who identify as African, African American, Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Latin-x/a/o or otherwise having African or Black ancestry.” Specifically, the Guidance states that the NYCHRL protects the rights of Black New Yorkers “to maintain natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”[1] Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit and California Court of Appeals Rule on Freedom of Religion Rights

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Not necessarily. The Ninth Circuit and California Court of Appeals recently decided two cases that substantially limit the scope and application of freedom of religion rights rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Together, these cases narrow the definition of the term “minister,” and expand the spectrum of employment law claims which may be brought against a religious employer. This new interpretation of freedom of religion rights may be difficult to reconcile with existing law from the U.S. Supreme Court which bars a minister from bringing employment discrimination claims against a religious employer. Continue Reading

Transgender Discrimination Outlawed in New York

On January 25, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Under the law, “gender identity or expression” is defined as a “person’s actual or perceived gender-related identity, appearance, behavior, expression or other gender-related characteristic regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth, including, but not limited to, the status of being transgender.”  Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Announces a Win for Payroll Outsourcing Industry

Last week, the California State Supreme Court struck a decisive victory in favor of payroll companies, issuing a unanimous opinion that an employee is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between her employer and its payroll service provider. The court held that an employee-plaintiff has no standing to sue her employer’s payroll company for an alleged failure to pay wages under California’s employee-friendly labor laws. Continue Reading

New Jersey Minimum Wage Set to Increase to $15 Per Hour by 2024

On February 4, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law legislation, available here, which gradually raises the minimum wage in New Jersey to $15 per hour by the year 2024 for many workers in New Jersey. Under this law, for employers with more than six employees, the current New Jersey statewide minimum wage of $8.85 will incrementally rise to $15 per hour as follows:

Date of Increase Minimum Wage Amount
July 1, 2019 $10 per hour
January 1, 2020 $11 per hour
January 1, 2021 $12 per hour
January 1, 2022 $13 per hour
January 1, 2023 $14 per hour
January 1, 2024 $15 per hour

Continue Reading

Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc.: California Employers Should Dial Back On-Call Shift Policies

On February 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeal, Second District issued a 2-1 decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. in which it held employees must be given “reporting time pay” under Wage Order No. 7-2001 when an employer requires its employees to call in two hours before a potential shift to learn whether the employee is needed for work and the employee is told not to come into work that day.  This decision strays from most employers’ general understanding that “reporting time pay” covers only the situation where the employee physically comes into work but is sent home early (usually for lack of work).  Nevertheless, as the only published California appellate decision addressing this specific issue, California employers are bound by Ward and should revise their reporting policies accordingly to avoid liability. Continue Reading

LexBlog

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree