Posts

New Form W-4 Does Not Apply to All State Tax Withholding – Are You Using the Right Forms?

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In December 2019, the IRS issued a new Form W-4 to reflect the elimination of withholding allowances because individuals can no longer claim personal or dependency exemptions. While this was intended to allow for more accurate federal tax withholding calculations, it raises the question of what employers should do with respect to state tax withholding requirements.

Read more

Nevada: Extensive Legislative Updates

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NV Employees

EFFECTIVE

Varies; See Below

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Nevada Legislature enacted a number of laws in 2019.  Below is a summary of legislative updates that impact employers.

AB 181 | Sick Day Notice.  Effective May 15, 2019, employers cannot require employees to be physically present at work in order to provide notification of an injury or illness requiring sick leave usage.  However, employers can continue to require employees to notify the employer when they are sick and cannot come to work.

AB 192 | Removal of Decriminalized Offenses.  Effective July 1, 2019, any person convicted of a decriminalized offense may request to have records of the offense sealed so they do not appear on background checks.

AB 226 | Microchip Implantation.  Effective October 1, 2019, employers or any other entity or individual cannot require a person to have a microchip implant or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment.

Read more

Nevada: Employers Cannot Decline Job Applicants Based on a Positive Marijuana Testing

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers of NV Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Effective January 1, 2020, Nevada will be the first state in the country to prohibit employers from failing or refusing to hire an applicant on the basis of failing a pre-employment marijuana test.  The new law does not apply to certain occupations, such as EMTs, firefighters, and any position that drives vehicles in which drug testing is required by federal or state law.  Furthermore, employers are able to reject job applicants if positive marijuana usage puts others’ safety at risk.

Employees will have the ability to challenge the results of pre-employment drug testing required by employers within the first 30 days of hiring.  The challenging employee must pay for a second screening test, but the results must be considered by the employer.  This challenge provision does not apply if it conflicts with an employment contract, collective bargaining agreement, or federal or state requirements, or to any positions funded by federal grants.

Action Items

  1. Read AB 132 here.
  2. Update background screening procedures for and train hiring managers on the new restrictions.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

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.

© 2019 ManagEase

Nevada: Large Employers Must Provide Paid Leave for Any Reason Starting in 2020

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Employers with 50+ NV Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Beginning January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 312 will require private employers of 50 or more employees to provide up to 40 hours of paid leave that can be used for any purpose.  Key requirements are summarized below.

Read more

Nevada: Legislature Defines “Health Benefits” for Lower-Tier Minimum Wage Rate

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Private Employers with NV Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Senate Bill 192 recently passed defining “health benefits” for purposes of employers paying the lower-tier minimum wage. Specifically, employers may pay a lower tier minimum wage if they provide health benefits to employees. There has been some controversy over what “health benefits” means. Last year, in MDC Restaurants, LLC v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that health benefits must be “at least equivalent to the one dollar per hour in wages that the employee would otherwise receive” for the higher-tier minimum wage, and cost the employer at least an additional dollar in wages.

Read more

June Updates

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456
This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. U.S. Supreme Court: Title VII Claims to the EEOC are Merely Procedural and Not Jurisdictional to Courts
  2. U.S. Supreme Court: State Wage and Hour Rules Don’t Apply to Workers on the Outer Continental Shelf
  3. DOL Issued Updated Poster for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors
  4. California: July 1st REMINDERS for Employers
  5. Emeryville, CA: July 1st Minimum Wage Increase Paused for Small Independent Restaurants
  6. Colorado: Wage Garnishment Reform on the Horizon
  7. Connecticut: Minimum Wage Increasing to $15 an Hour
  8. Minneapolis, MN: Sick and Safe Time Rule Is Still Up in the Air
  9. Kansas City, MO: Bans Pre-Employment Salary History Inquiries
  10. Nevada: Mandatory Safety Training Expanded to Trade Show and Convention Workers
  11. New Jersey: Required Workplace Postings Receive an Update
  12. Texas: Dallas and San Antonio Paid Sick Leave Set to Go into Effect August 1st

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Fair Credit Reporting Act Pre-Adverse Action Notice Is a Procedural Requirement and Not an Actionable Right

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 13, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Dutta v. State Farm, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that an employee did not have standing to sue a prospective employer for failing to comply with the pre-adverse action notice requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires employers to give applicants notice before they take any adverse employment action based on the results of a consumer report (e.g., credit report). This requirement is meant to give the applicant an opportunity to contest or correct information in the credit report. After providing such pre-adverse action notice and certain timing requirements are met, an employer may then take the adverse action if it still intends to do so.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Tribal Casinos Must Obey NLRA

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, and WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, even self-governed tribal land must obey the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  In National Labor Relations Board v. Casino Pauma, the circuit court stated that the casino violated the NLRA by attempting to limit protected union activity.

Under the NLRA, employees have the right to engage in specified protected activities relating to improving or discussing working conditions, free of employer retaliation or adverse action.  At Casino Pauma, operated by the Pauma Band of Mission Indians and located on the tribe’s reservation, a number of casino workers began distributing union leaflets to customers entering the casino.  The employees were originally removed by security.  When they attempted to distribute leaflets some weeks later, the employees were disciplined.

The NLRB filed a complaint on behalf of the employees.  An administrative law judge found that the casino violated the NLRA by attempting to interfere with protected union activities, and the circuit court agreed, stating that the NLRA applies to tribal employers.

Action Items

  1. Review the full text of the case here.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

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

Nevada: Interpreting “Health Benefits” for Minimum Wage Requirements

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NV Employees

EFFECTIVE

May 31, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Nevada employers are permitted to pay the state’s lower-tier minimum wage rate if they offer health benefits. In MDC Restaurants, LLC v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, the Nevada Supreme Court recently clarified what constitutes “health benefits.” Because the difference between the upper-tier and lower-tier minimum wage rates is $1.00, the court used “common sense” in stating that health benefits must be “at least equivalent to the one dollar per hour in wages that the employee would otherwise receive” and cost the employer at least an additional dollar in wages.

Read more