|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE Varies; See Below |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The USCIS has announced a number of updates regarding foreign work visas and signatures on immigration documents. Employers who are in the process of, or otherwise intend to hire, foreign workers should review these updates carefully.
|
APPLIES TO Employers with MI, OH, KY, and TN Employees |
EFFECTIVE March 7, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On March 7, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court to state that transgender and transitioning employees are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on specific protected categories. Further, the circuit court stated that “sincerely held religious beliefs” do not shield employers from Title VII discrimination claims.
|
APPLIES TO Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE February 23, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
A California Court of Appeal recently stated that the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is unenforceable in employment contracts for employees who engage in interstate or foreign transportation, regardless of whether the employer is in the transportation industry.
|
APPLIES TO Employers with MA Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 29, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Tze-Kit v. Massachusetts Port Authority, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated that sick pay is not considered wages under the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law. Employers are not required to pay out accrued, unused sick pay as part of an employee’s final pay upon separation of employment.
|
APPLIES TO Employers with WA Employees |
EFFECTIVE June 6 and 7, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The state of Washington recently passed several bills that affect employer practices. HB 1298 created the Fair Chance Act prohibiting applicant criminal inquiries, SB 5996 prohibits employers from requiring employees to sign nondisclosure agreements regarding harassment or sexual assault, HB 1506 updates and expands the statewide Equal Pay Act, and HB 2661 prohibits discrimination of victims of domestic violence.
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE February 28, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On February 28, 2018, the IRS issued the 2018 Form W-4, which includes the updated tax table information. Although employees are not required to complete a new Form W-4 each year, it is considered a best practice. This year is particularly significant given the updated tax tables issued as a result of the December 2017 tax overhaul. Even if employees completed a Form W-4 in 2018 using the 2017 form, employers should consider making the 2018 form available in the event employees need to make changes consistent with the new tax legislation.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2018 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE February 26, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Keeping up with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) can be a challenge. A mere two months after its December 2017 ruling in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., which determined a joint-employer relationship by looking at an employer’s actual control over employees, the NLRB vacated the Hy-Brand decision, causing the joint-employer standard to revert back to the August 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which follows an indirect and reserved control standard for determining joint-employer status.
The reversal is the result of a technicality – a conflict of interest of one of the board members involved in the Hy-Brand decision. Prior to becoming an NLRB board member, William Emanuel worked for a private law firm that represented one of the companies involved in the Browning-Ferris case. When this relationship came to light, the NLRB issued an order vacating its Hy-Brand decision, stating that the board member should have been disqualified from participating in the ruling. For now, the Browning-Ferris standard is back on top. However, in light of the NLRB’s Memorandum 18-02, employers can likely expect to see continued changes on this and other topics. Stay tuned.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2018 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE February 21, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously stated that a “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act is someone who reports suspected securities law violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The Dodd-Frank Act is a federal law intended to prevent abusive financial service practices, and protects whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting violations.
In Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, an employee internally reported possible securities violations, and was fired shortly thereafter. The employee claimed he was retaliated against for whistleblowing. However, because he did not report the alleged violations to the SEC, the Supreme Court stated that he was not entitled to protected whistleblower status under Dodd-Frank.
While this case may seem appealing to employers, companies must still take care to avoid retaliation against employees. Specifically, other federal or state protections may protect internal whistleblower complaints. Additionally, this decision may cause employees to report misconduct to the SEC in order to access the Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower protections, rather than first reporting the issue internally within the company. Ultimately, it is best practice for employers to take all complaints seriously and treat employees fairly.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2018 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CT, NY, and VT Employees |
EFFECTIVE February 26, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals joins the Seventh Circuit in stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. Historically, the circuit courts have not included sexual orientation as a protected status under sex discrimination, which is prohibited by Title VII, but the Second Circuit acknowledged that the social and legal landscape surrounding LGBT rights have evolved.