Posts

Hold On to Your Hats – Expanded EEO-1 Pay Data May Need to Be Reported for 2018

APPLIES TO

All Employers Required to Submit EEO-1 Reports

EFFECTIVE

March 4, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

A Washington, D.C. federal district court judge in National Women’s Law Center v. OMB recently stated that the previously revised EEO-1 report, including employee pay data, is the form employers should be using to submit their required Employer Information Report. In 2016, the EEOC proposed changes to its employer data collection requirements to add 12 pay bands for the 10 job categories that are tracked in EEO-1 reporting. After proposed revisions, the rule was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the revised EEO-1 form was issued. However, following the 2016 presidential election, the OMB directed the EEOC to issue a stay of the form’s release, which it did, and the EEOC subsequently removed the revised EEO-1 form from its website.

Read more

Wisconsin: Employee Non-Solicitation Agreements Must Be “Reasonable”

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 19, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wisconsin, post-employment restrictive covenants must be “reasonable” to be enforced. In Manitowoc Company, Inc. v. Lanning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently stated that post-employment non-solicitation agreements must meet the same standard as other post-employment restrictive covenants (e.g., non-competition and non-disclosure agreements). Specifically, a “reasonable” non-solicitation agreement must be necessary for the protection of the employer, provide reasonable time and territorial limits, and not be oppressive to the employee or contrary to public policy.

Minnesota: Employers Cannot Fire Employees for Refusing to Share Tips

APPLIES TO

All Employers of MN Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 11, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Supreme Court of Minnesota recently affirmed that employers cannot terminate an employee for refusal or failing to share gratuities.  In Burt v. Rackner, Inc., a bartender was instructed to share a greater portion of his tips with bussing staff.  Upon his failure to do so, the bartender was terminated, and he filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

Minnesota: Non-Compete Agreements Require Additional Consideration Other than Continued Employment

APPLIES TO

All Employers of MN Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 6, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On October 6, 2017, a Minnesota federal district court emphasized the importance of appropriately presenting restrictive covenants.  Minnesota employers who require employees to sign restrictive covenants, such as a non-compete agreement, have certain obligations to the timing and type of consideration that must be offered with the restrictive covenant.  Specifically, new applicants must be provided the non-compete agreement before accepting the offer of employment, and currently-employed individuals must be provided something of value beyond continued employment as consideration.

Washington: Healthy Start Act Requires Accommodation for Pregnant Employees, With or Without Disability

APPLIES TO

All Employers of 15+ WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Washington State’s Healthy Starts Act (the “Act”) requires covered employers to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations.  In contrast to federal and other state anti-discrimination laws, some accommodations must be provided regardless of disability or medical certification, and regardless of whether such accommodations may cause the employer undue hardship.

The Act applies to employers of 15 or more Washington employees.  Key provisions of the Act are summarized below.