Educational Updates

Subscribe to Educational Updates via RSS

The end of the year is often a time of self-reflection to determine if one has ended up on the “Nice” or “Naughty” List. In appellate practice, ending up on the “Naughty List” can result in serious consequences, including the dismissal of a pending appeal and a forfeiture of substantive legal rights, regardless of the merits of the underlying appeal.
Continue Reading Ending Up On The Naughty List: Dismissal Of A Pending Appeal Under The Disentitlement Doctrine

Employers began to rethink how they obtain authorization and retrieve background and credit checks for new employees after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169, 1177 (9th Cir. 2019), as we’ve previously discussed. However, lower California courts recently decided other issues surrounding background checks, such as the amount of time employees have to file a claim. These recent rulings suggest that the statute of limitations for an employee to file a claim for an alleged violation of federal and/or state background and credit checks laws can begin on the employee’s first day of work.
Continue Reading First Day on the Job and on Notice: When the Statute of Limitations Begins for Employer Background Checks

The Senate voted yesterday to begin formal negotiations with the House of Representatives to reconcile their two versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a bill that seeks to make sweeping changes to federal tax law. Republicans are racing to enact a final bill before Christmas. Under both versions of the bill, tax-exempt organizations would face new burdens and taxes in order to pay for tax cuts elsewhere. In particular, the proposed changes would:

  1. make it harder for larger tax-exempt organizations to attract and retain top talent, by imposing a new 20% tax on annual compensation of over $1 million per year paid to any of their top 5 highest paid employees (including certain severance payments);
  2. reduce revenues, by eliminating certain tax incentives to make charitable donations;
  3. eliminate critical low-cost financing for hospitals and universities from tax-exempt bonds;
  4. make certain employee benefits more expensive, by taxing organizations that pay certain fringe benefits and taxing employees on certain employer-provided education and tuition assistance; and
  5. add new pressures on Section 501(c)(3) organizations to support or oppose political candidates, by loosening the current absolute prohibition against political activity.

Continue Reading Tax Reform: Nonprofits and their Executives Brace for Impact

The new year will bring along a variety of new obligations for California employers.  Although some of the new laws clarify existing law and provide helpful guidance, several impose additional requirements.  This update highlights key provisions of some of the more notable changes taking effect in 2017.  Links to the statutes and/or prior updates regarding the same are provided where applicable.
Continue Reading California Employers – New Year, New Rules in 2017

Human Resources and payroll professionals are being targeted by sophisticated cyber criminals to steal employee data.  The email phishing scam works like this:  the bad guy sends an email to employees in the human resources or payroll department spoofing an email from a company executive, usually the CEO or CFO.  Email spoofing is the forgery of an email header so the message appears to have originated from the c-suite but actually belongs to a cybercriminal. The email may seek confidential information about the company’s employees, such as their Social Security Numbers and W-2 forms, or may ask that funds be immediately sent, via wire transfer, to a bank account number (commonly associated with a bank overseas).  Recipients of spoofed emails are deceived into disclosing the protected data that is then used to submit employees’ tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service or for other illegal activity such as transferring company funds to accounts from which they cannot be retrieved.
Continue Reading Beware of Email Requests from the C-Suite to Transfer Employee Data

This year the California Legislature added over a dozen new employment laws, many of which take effect on January 1, 2016.  Some of these laws impose new prohibitions on employers, while others provide positive benefits such as safe harbors, cure provisions, and employer incentives for reclassification of certain independent contractors.  This update highlights key provisions in some of the new laws taking effect January 1, 2016.  Links to the statutes are provided.
Continue Reading New Year, New Rules For Employers Doing Business in California

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued proposed regulations addressing how the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) applies to corporate wellness programs.  These proposed regulations are intended to provide employers with guidance on how to encourage workers to participate in wellness programs without violating federal law.  Employers with wellness programs, or those who are thinking about instituting wellness programs, should become familiar with the proposed regulations if they wish to avoid litigation.
Continue Reading An Ounce Of Prevention…Does Your Voluntary Wellness Program Comply With Proposed EEOC Regulations?

Beginning on April 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) new representation case procedural rules will be applied to all representation petitions filed thereafter.  While the NLRB insists that the new rules “remove unnecessary barriers to the fair and expeditious resolution of representation cases” and “simplify representation-case procedures,” a closer reading of the rules makes it clear that they are designed to place a more onerous burden on employers during the representation case process.  Examples of the increased burden on employers include, but are not limited to:
Continue Reading The NLRB’s Changes to Representation Case Procedures

In 2004, the DOL revamped its regulations regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) administrative exemption.  In 2006, the Bush DOL issued an opinion letter finding that mortgage loan officers qualified for the administrative exemption.  In 2010, the Obama DOL withdrew the 2006 opinion letter and issued an Administrator’s Interpretation finding that mortgage loan officers did not qualify for the administration exemption.  The Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) challenged the 2010 interpretation arguing that it was invalid under Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (1997) because it significantly altered the DOL’s 2006 opinion letter and it was issued without employing the notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  The district court rejected the argument, finding that the MBA had not demonstrated substantial and justifiable reliance on a well-established agency interpretation. The D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that reliance is but one factor courts must consider in assessing whether an agency interpretation qualifies as definitive. 
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Holds Agency Interpretations Are Not Subject To Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Requirement

The District of Columbia recently joined twelve other states[1] that have enacted laws requiring employers to accommodate certain limitations associated with pregnancy.  The Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “Act” or “PPWFA”) of 2014 was passed on October 23, 2014 and is under Congressional review.  It is currently expected to become effective on March 3, 2015.
Continue Reading Get Ready! DC’s Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Currently Expected To Take Effect On March 3, 2015

On December 31, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (Case No. S212704) that security guards who work shifts of 24 or more hours under Wage Order 4 must be compensated for their sleep time.  The Court also held that, under the particular facts of the case, the security guards were required to be paid for their “on-call” time.
Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Holds That Certain Security Guards Must Be Paid to Sleep