The new DHS fee rule, which goes into effect on October 2, 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will change the filing fees for the vast majority of employment-based petitions and applications filed with that agency.
The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that an unpaid student intern working at a local nonprofit was entitled to the same protection against discrimination found in the Minnesota Human Rights Act as paid employees.
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion* that reverses the long-held common-law understanding in Minnesota that hospitals are not liable for the actions of their physician independent contractors.
While the ordinance does not directly affect the increasingly complicated and ever-changing analysis of when an individual is properly utilized as an independent contractor (as opposed to being treated like an employee), Minneapolis businesses should be cautious when preparing the written agreement required under the ordinance.
Youth sports organizations are often run by people who are volunteers. Sometimes one volunteer within the group opens a bank account in the name of the sports organization, so fees can be deposited and expenses paid. Many times, a member of the group will suggest that the organization should formalize itself and set up a 501(c)(3) or an LLC to run the programs. What do these terms mean and when would it benefit a youth sports organization to formally organize as a 501(c)(3) or an LLC? Heidi Christianson explains.
The current administration has sought to expand the types of benefits that would give cause to believe that an individual is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, and, thus, inadmissible under U.S. immigration law.
More than four months after Gov. Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency in Minnesota, many employers are eager to return to normal (to the extent possible). But two recent developments in Minnesota that have further pushed back the timeline for returning to “business as usual.”
Each year, Minnesota Lawyer recognizes a group of new attorneys with under a decade of practice. We're pleased to announce NJL associate Pharaoh Lewis has joined the 2020 class of Up & Coming Attorneys.
Pay inequities can create government regulatory problems with the EEOC and OFCCP, for example, and can also present litigation risks in the form of government lawsuits or private class actions. But pay equity issues also can result in brand and morale challenges that may ultimately be more significant than those in the regulatory and litigation contexts. Because of new, creative tactics from advocacy groups, as well as changes in the societal and media environments, employers should place greater focus on the brand and morale aspects of pay equity.
There are some legal risks associated with COVID-related changes in the workplace that deserve more attention than they have received to date. One of these is the potential for gender-based imbalances in compensation, promotions, and other conditions of employment.
The California Supreme Court issued an important pair of decisions today clarifying that California-compliant wage statements need to be provided only to workers who perform the majority of their work in California, or who are based for work purposes in California.
On July 1, 2020, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) will enter into full force, when it will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) as the primary agreement governing trade relations between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued today a legal defeat to the Administration’s termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The program (initially announced in June 2012) allows certain foreign nationals who were brought to the United States as children to request permission to remain in the United States (also known as deferred action) and work for a period of two years if specific requirements are met. An estimated 700,000 beneficiaries have received DACA benefits to date.
The Supreme Court has ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals from being discriminated against in employment. The 6-3 opinion consolidates three cases from the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, each of which involved individuals fired from their jobs because of either their sexual orientation or gender identity. Each case called the question: Is discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity a type of prohibited discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII?