Employee Benefits / Employment Law / HR
Showing 433–448 of 653 results
-
USERRA case addresses commission-based employees
March / April 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 802
Abstract: A successful financial advisor went on leave when he was activated for military duty, but, upon his return, he was offered accounts that would generate virtually no commissions. He successfully sued under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). This article explains some of the requirements of that act. Citation: Serricchio v. Wachovia Securities, No. 10-1590-cv, Sept. 13, 2011 (2nd Cir.)
-
The inherent risks of a lack of accountability
March / April 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 785
Abstract: An associate surgeon made several allegations that the residency director’s behavior toward her and other women was consistently inappropriate and demeaning. When her medical credentials were up for review by the hospital’s credentials committee, the residency director presented her in an unfavorable light, and the committee ordered counseling for her. Upon review, the chief medical officer didn’t tell the committee about the plaintiff’s allegations against the residency director, and the committee reaffirmed. The plaintiff successfully sued. This article explains that even high-ranking professionals must follow the law. Citation: Tuli v. Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Nos. 08-2026, 09-1597, 09-1603, 09-1731, Aug. 29, 2011 (1st Cir.)
-
Choose words carefully — College administrator’s comment spurs ADA lawsuit
March / April 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 783
Abstract: A mentally disabled worker for a community college had been repeatedly denied promotion. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). When he later asked a school HR official what he should be doing differently, he essentially was told he should not be suing his employer. This article explains why that comment endangered the college’s case when the worker later sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Citation: Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 522, No. 10–3381, September 16, 2011 (7th Cir.)
-
What did he say? — ADEA decision centers on employee’s alleged repeated verbal abuse
March / April 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1055
Abstract: When a 65-year-old employee resigned after alleged repeated age-related abuse, he filed suit, claiming a hostile work environment. However, this type of claim isn’t addressed in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Fifth Circuit had never before held that Title VII could be used to address a claim of hostile work environment based on age. Nevertheless, the court held that a "plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim based on age discrimination under the ADEA may be advanced in this court." This article explains the court’s reasoning, while a sidebar shows why the court also concluded that the plaintiff had valid grounds for his "constructive discharge" claim. Citation: Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., No. 10-3076, Sept. 12, 2011 (5th Cir.). Crawford v. Medina General Hospital, No. 95-3243, Sept. 24, 1996 (6th Cir.)
-
COMPLIANCE ALERT
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 125
Abstract: A brief list of key tax reporting deadlines for February, March and April.
-
2012 vs. 2011 retirement plan limits
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 108
Abstract: This brief chart highlights numerous retirement plan limits.
-
Is that domestic relations order qualified?
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 380
Abstract: Every plan administrator likely will have to handle a domestic relations order at some time. This brief article discusses what an administrator needs to know to make sure the order is qualified before distributing funds owed to a plan participant to another person.
-
They’re back … The required minimum distribution deadline is nearing
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 562
Abstract: While some were hoping for a reprieve from the IRS similar to that in 2009, retirement plan participants must take required minimum distributions (RMDs) for the 2011 tax year. RMDs are minimum amounts that certain participants must take each year. This article reviews when to start these distributions and how much to distribute.
-
Dealing with terminated employees’ plan balances
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 700
Abstract: When a participant terminates employment with a company and leaves a vested account balance in the plan, several options are available. The terms of the plan document will control the participant’s decision. This article discusses the options available to plan sponsors, including when a plan can “force out” a participant’s balance.
-
It’s a privilege — Understand the ERISA fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 845
Abstract: Plan sponsors communicate with attorneys as to plan requirements and potential legal issues regularly. These communications may be subject to the attorney-client privilege, but then again, they may not. This article explains what ERISA plan fiduciaries must understand about the attorney-client privilege and its exceptions.
-
No hire, no retaliation — One FLSA case gives rise to another
January / February 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 775
Abstract: After a prospective employee admitted to having commenced a lawsuit against her former employer, her job offer was withdrawn. But was she protected as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act? This article discusses the court’s ruling. Citation: Dellinger v. Science Applications International Corp, No. 10-1499, Aug. 12, 2011 (4th Cir.)
-
Assessing ADA protection for recovering addicts
January / February 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 732
Abstract: A plaintiff who’d completed an inpatient drug rehabilitation program asked his employer whether he could return to work. He was told yes, but with reduced compensation. He filed a lawsuit alleging that he was subject to unlawful discrimination. In response, the employer argued that he wasn’t protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act because, it asserted, he’d still been a drug user when he’d asked to be rehired. This article looks at whether the one month that the plaintiff had spent in the treatment program qualified him for protection under the ADA’s safe harbor provision for people not currently using drugs. Citation: Mauerhan v. Wagner Corporation, Nos. 09-4179 & 09-4185, April 19, 2011 (10th Cir.)
-
Third Circuit addresses allegedly discriminatory PIP
January / February 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1040
Abstract: A performance improvement plan (PIP) is supposed to help an employee keep his or her job. But does requiring an employee to participate in a PIP constitute an adverse employment action that could establish the basis for an age discrimination case? This article discusses a case that addressed that question, while a sidebar looks at another case that dealt with whether failure to investigate a discrimination complaint constitutes an adverse employment action. Citations: Reynolds v. Department of Army, No. 10-3600, July 22, 2011 (3rd Cir.). Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, No. 97-569, June 26, 1998 (Supreme Court). Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., No. 08-5013, May 14, 2010 (2nd Cir.)
-
Is that your final answer? — Polygraph law put to the test in Eleventh Circuit case
January / February 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 814
Abstract: When may an employer legally request that a staff member undergo a polygraph examination? After a bank discovered that money had gone amiss, surveillance video and employee testimony did not discover that a particular manager had stolen the money, but that he had violated security policies. After he refused to take a polygraph test, he was fired. This article looks at the court’s decision, which highlights the four conditions employers must meet before they may lawfully request that their employees take a polygraph test. Citation: Cummings v. Washington Mutual, No. 10-10706, Aug. 22, 2011 (11th Cir.)
-
COMPLIANCE ALERT – Upcoming compliance deadlines:
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 78
Abstract: A brief list of key tax reporting deadlines for December and January.
-
Be on time with your electronic federal tax deposits
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 333
Abstract: As of Jan. 1, 2011, the IRS no longer accepts federal tax deposit coupons and it requires taxpayers to submit the deposits electronically. This affects many qualified retirement plans. This brief article explains how to enroll in the electronic program and the importance of making timely deposits.