If it’s not already clear to employers that Uncle Sam means business regarding employment eligibility, the end of summer may serve as a loud wake-up call. Last August, the U.S. DOJ, DHS and DOL together announced a doubling of civil fines for violations of Form I-9 requirements, which raised the ceiling for a single paperwork violation to a potential whopping $2,156.
Posted August 23, 2017
Congratulations to the Minnesota Vikings for launching their charitable organization, Minnesota Vikings Foundation. The organization is dedicated to advancing the well-being of youth through engaging health and education initiatives. Read more about the new foundation here.
The Scenario: Your company has a great applicant for a job opening, Jane, but you learn during the interview process that Jane signed a non-compete agreement with her current employer. You can quickly spot some reasons why the non-compete is unenforceable. You acknowledge there is some risk in hiring Jane, though, including that her current employer may sue Jane for breaching the contract and your company for interfering with her contract—a tortious interference claim. So, now what? Setting aside Jane and her own legal risks, what specific steps should you take to set up your best defense to a claim that your company interfered with Jane’s contract?
Posted August 9, 2017
On August 9, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court redefined what “good faith” means under the 2013 amendment of the Minnesota Whistleblowers Act (MWA). In Friedlander v. Edwards Life Sciences, LLC, the Court concluded that its prior interpretations of "good faith" gave the phrase a meaning different from the definition provided in the 2013 amendment and, as a result, those prior decisions are abrogated. The Court reasoned that any other conclusion would render the "good faith" definition section of the 2013 amendment superfluous.
Posted August 2, 2017
On August 1, 2017, the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice plans to increase its focus on investigations and litigation regarding "intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions." The target? Affirmative action programs in college admissions.
In the last six months, the scope of federal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and gender identity) has been a hot topic in the courts and Trump administration. During the Obama administration, federal agencies and the Department of Justice argued in favor of such protection. The Trump administration is taking the opposite approach, and yesterday the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit explicitly arguing that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. The courts are divided. In the spring of 2017, the Seventh Circuit ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII, while the Eleventh Circuit rejected that view. The Second Circuit is weighing the issue, and in the meantime, what's an employer to do?
On Monday, July 24, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate former New York Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle (Rep.) to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). If confirmed, she will begin a seven-year term on October 27, 2018, that will end in October 2025.
Posted July 24, 2017
In September 2016, the State of California enacted Labor Code Section 925, which received lots of buzz at the time for its potential to crumble employers’ ability to legally enforce non-compete agreements and other employment contracts involving individuals living and …
Posted July 24, 2017
Oregon lawmakers approved the nation’s first statewide measure requiring predictive scheduling for employees. Assuming Gov. Kate Brown signs as expected, the bill takes effect July 1, 2018, and requires large employers in the retail, hospitality, and food service industries to …
Many non-California employers view the enactment of California Labor Code Section 925 as destroying any possibility of avoiding the state’s restrictive covenants laws for California-based employees. But there is hope! With creative legal counsel, employers can draft agreements that do not implicate the statute and avoid its application in litigation.
First District Court in 8th Circuit Holds Religious Accommodation Requests Alone Not Basis for Retaliation Claim Under Title VII
The EEOC alleged that North Memorial retaliated against a prospective employee when the employer rescinded a job offer after the prospect told the employer she couldn’t work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday for religious reasons.
The groundswell of legal activity surrounding whether websites are covered under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is likely to increase following a recent verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Minneapolis City Council adopted a $15 minimum wage ordinance on Friday, June 30, 2017. Labor and Employment attorney Lisa Schmid has been following the ordinance closely and has updated a previous post with the changes voted on June 30. …
With more than 13 years as a litigator, O’Malley advises clients in all types of employment and wage-and-hour litigation, with extensive experience litigating in California.
The Minneapolis City Council is set to adopt a $15 minimum wage ordinance on Friday, June 30, 2017. The ordinance was updated after the City held hearings on June 22 and 28, thought most of the ordinance remains unchanged.
The U.S. Senate’s health care reform bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (“BCRA”), contains some eye-catching changes to the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), like substantial reductions in Medicaid funding – and some that are subtle but substantial, like Section 1332 waivers.
Posted June 6, 2017
As expected, the Minneapolis City Council released its draft ordinance implementing a minimum wage increase. The draft ordinance includes extraterritorial application—meaning that it will apply to employers outside of Minneapolis if their employees work for a minimal amount of time in the City, a provision which will almost certainly face legal challenge—and no tip credit.
The Affordable Care Act imposed new requirements on tax-exempt hospitals under Section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 501(r) and its implementing regulations present a complex framework intended to promote “charitable” behavior by tax-exempt hospitals. By way of example, 501(r) requires a hospital to assess and address community health needs and to adopt billing and collection practices aimed at ensuring that patients who have a limited ability to pay for care are treated fairly.
Posted May 26, 2017
On May 26, 2017, the Minneapolis City Council will propose plans for an ordinance that will recommend eventually raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour without a tip credit.