1. Welcome to Employment Law This Week®! Subscribe to our channel for new episodes every Monday!

    1. Spring 2018 Regulatory Agendas Released

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) have published their spring 2018 regulatory agendas, giving some indication as to the priorities of each agency. The NLRB wants to take on the continuing question of how to determine joint-employer status, noting that the agency may engage in rulemaking to set a new standard. The EEOC identified seven different priorities, including employee incentives for workplace wellness programs. And the DOL’s agenda included proposed rulemaking on the salary threshold for white-collar overtime exemptions and a final rule to rescind the "persuader rule." David Garland, from Epstein Becker Green, has more:

    “I'd say there are two surprising items in this agenda. The first comes from the Department of Labor, with regard to the proposed overtime rules, the new proposed rules. Those have been a subject of some attention for some time, going back now to the Obama administration; they were the subject of litigation. We expected the Trump administration to be acting sooner than it has in that area. And now ... this agenda tells us not to expect any additional proposed rulemaking until January of 2019. The second surprising area comes from the National Labor Relations Board. Again, particularly with regard to the joint-employer standard. The Board, over the last few years and the past two administrations, has addressed that standard in decision-making, whether it’s the Browning-Ferris decision or, subsequently, the Hy-Brand decision. Now, the Board is telling us, rather than engaging in the process of that fashion, it's going to consider establishing the joint-employer standard through rulemaking. So that's a bit surprising.”

    2. EEOC Releases “Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment”

    There is more news from the EEOC this week, in response to #MeToo. The agency has published an article on preventing workplace harassment in its quarterly publication, Digest of Equal Opportunity Law. The article identifies best practices, including training supervisors and implementing a harassment complaint system, and contains specific content recommendations for harassment policies. The recommendations come out of a 2016 taskforce report addressing workplace harassment.

    For more, click here: https://bit.ly/2Gu7kNs

    3. Inadmissible Evidence May Be Considered at Class Certification Stage

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that evidence need not be admissible to support class certification. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed a federal district court decision refusing to certify a class action in a wage-hour matter on the grounds that the relevant evidence was not admissible. The Ninth Circuit held that courts cannot decline to consider evidence solely because it is inadmissible at trial.

    4. Philadelphia Federal Judge Partially Nixes Salary History Ban

    A salary history ban in Philadelphia? A federal judge says, “Not so fast.” The federal district court has issued a preliminary injunction halting certain provisions of the law, which prohibit employer questions about a candidate’s past wages. The judge found that the ban on such inquiries probably violates the First Amendment. The ruling did not impact another key provision of the law that prevents employers from using salary history to determine compensation.

    For more, click here: https://bit.ly/2KyBBgR

    5. Tip of the Week

    Tracy Van Duston, Senior Recruiter and Account Manager for NRI Staffing, offers advice on hiring for behavior style and cultural fit:

    Visit EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.

    These materials have been provided for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. The “Tip of the Week” offers one perspective on possible human resource ideas or business practices. It presents the perspective of an individual not affiliated with Epstein Becker Green and should not be considered legal advice. The content of these materials is copyrighted to Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® is a registered trademark of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

    # vimeo.com/270764720 Uploaded 2 Views 0 Comments
  2. Recent rulings have created some further guidance that can help employers seeking to protect their interests and also help them know when to litigate. Plus, the pros and cons of garden leave provisions, with Peter Steinmeyer.

    This is an extended interview from Employment Law This Week® (Episode 117: Week of May 14, 2018), an online series by Epstein Becker Green. youtu.be/85-b3AHvWqI

    Visit EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.

    These materials have been provided for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. The content of these materials is copyrighted to Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® is a registered trademark of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

    # vimeo.com/269909352 Uploaded 3 Views 0 Comments
  3. Welcome to Employment Law This Week®! Subscribe to our channel for new episodes every Monday!

    This week, we focus on employee mobility, an area of law that’s top of mind for many employers and employees at all levels. The laws that apply to such tools as non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are changing almost daily in the courts and legislatures, and companies are finding it challenging to protect their confidential information, balance employee interests, and have enforceable protections. Aime Dempsey, from Epstein Becker Green, provides an update on some of the latest legislation in this area:

    “Just a couple of weeks ago, on April 26th, bills were proposed in both the United States House and the United States Senate that would ban non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements are actually right now only banned in three states: California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. So, this would be a broad, nationwide ban for any employers who engage in commerce or who make products engaged in commerce. In Idaho, a law that was favorable to employers in the non-compete arena has been pulled back a little bit. In New York City last summer, there was a law proposed to restrict non-competes for low-wage workers.”

    In terms of enforcement, employers have been watching and waiting to see whether the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division will continue the Obama-era emphasis on anti-poaching agreements and other employee mobility issues in the Trump administration. We asked Aime if 2018 has brought any new insights:

    “It looks like, under this administration, the antitrust guidance will remain a priority. In October of 2016, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced a priority to enforce rules against no-poach agreements between employers. In January of this year, the DOJ Antitrust Division announced that it would be aggressively going after employers that violate the no-poach guidelines.”

    Recent rulings have created some further guidance that can help employers seeking to protect their interests and also help them know when to litigate. Here’s Peter Steinmeyer, from Epstein Becker Green, with more:

    “The lessons that employers can draw from recent non-compete and trade secret cases are that courts are reluctant to restrain an individual from going to work. However, if there was an actual theft of trade secrets, a court would be far more likely to grant injunctive relief. So, the cases that we see actually going to court and being filed tend to be those where there was an actual theft.”

    California is well known for its strict limitations on employers in this area. State law prohibits nearly all non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. Jonathan Brenner, from Epstein Becker Green, tells us how some employee departure protocols can help protect trade secrets:

    “Having well-prepared and thorough exit procedures for employees can be very helpful—procedures that include an exit interview process; processes for the return of equipment and other property; and the return of information, including information stored on the cloud or other web-based storage media. And an acknowledgement and certification form that serves as a reminder and statement of intent to comply with confidentiality obligations can all be very helpful, and they are very important features of such exit procedures. There are some more substantive arrangements that are at least possible in appropriate circumstances. Agreements for terms with employees that can be terminated at will early on by both sides is one example of that. Deferred compensation arrangements with vesting conditions as incentive for employees to stay on the job and not leave for a competitor and even ERISA plans that contain non-competition restrictions, which, at least as a matter of federal, ERISA law can be enforceable.”

    One option that employers in all jurisdictions can consider is the garden leave provision.

    “Garden leave provisions are clauses under which an employee will give 30 to 90 days’ advance notice of their resignation. They help employers, because they are an alternative to a traditional non-compete. Because they’re shorter in length, and because the employee is paid during the garden leave period, both employees and their new employers tend not to challenge them, and courts are more likely to enforce them.”

    Visit EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.

    These materials have been provided for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. The “Tip of the Week” offers one perspective on possible human resource ideas or business practices. It presents the perspective of an individual not affiliated with Epstein Becker Green and should not be considered legal advice. The content of these materials is copyrighted to Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® is a registered trademark of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

    # vimeo.com/269266644 Uploaded 1 Views 0 Comments
  4. Carolyn Rincon, Senior Employment Counsel for Marsh & McLennan Companies, shares some tips on evaluating whether to bring discovery in-house.

    This is a "Tip of the Week" segment from Employment Law This Week® (Episode 116: Week of May 7, 2018), an online series by Epstein Becker Green. youtu.be/c2xVVm6MIVg

    Visit EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.

    These materials have been provided for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. The “Tip of the Week” offers one perspective on possible human resource ideas or business practices. It presents the perspective of an individual not affiliated with Epstein Becker Green and should not be considered legal advice. The content of these materials is copyrighted to Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

    # vimeo.com/268087442 Uploaded 5 Views 0 Comments
  5. Welcome to Employment Law This Week®! Subscribe to our channel for new episodes every Monday!

    1. Legislation Introduced to Encourage Mobility

    Our top story: New legislation was introduced in Congress on employee mobility. Congressional Democrats have introduced bills in both houses targeting practices that curb competition between employers for workers. The legislation would effectively ban no-poaching agreements, which are, in most cases, already considered a criminal antitrust violation by the Department of Justice. But the bills go further to ban anti-competitive corporate mergers and prohibit non-compete agreements, except in limited circumstances. Jonathan Brenner, from Epstein Becker Green, has more:

    “Undoubtedly, the new legislation would require many employers to fairly significantly retool their employee hiring and onboarding practices, and their contracts that are in use with many of their employees. Another impact is in the enforcement area, as the new law apparently would give new enforcement powers to the federal Department of Labor for the prohibited activities. Right now, government fines, investigations, and audits are not things that employers have to contemplate with this kind of activity. The proposed legislation does not have bipartisan sponsorship. It has only been introduced by Democrats at this point. That could change, of course, but unless it does, the prospects for passage may be slim.”

    2. California Implements “ABC Test” for Independent Contractors

    California changes its test for independent contractors. The California Supreme Court has adopted the so-called “ABC test,” which is used in some other jurisdictions, for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. California workers will now be presumed to be employees unless an employer can establish otherwise using the three-pronged test. California businesses that utilize independent contractors should review those relationships in light of the change. To keep up with federal and state-level wage and hour changes, download Epstein Becker Green’s app, the Wage and Hour Guide for Employers.

    For more, click here: https://bit.ly/2HSSQIJ

    3. Emails About Employment Conditions Protected Under the NLRA Despite Profanity

    Emails among employees about the terms and conditions of employment remain protected by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), despite the use of profanity. A National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) panel found that a restaurant in New York City violated the NLRA by firing four employees after a group email criticized some company employment practices and policies. The employer contended that the employees’ actions were not protected by the NLRA because the message contained profanity. The NLRB disagreed and held that the email does not lose protection under the NLRA because of profanity, and that the employees were entitled to reinstatement and back pay.

    4. Ninth Circuit: Clock Starts After Receipt of Notice for Title VII Suits

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sets the clock on suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII lays out a 90-day time limit for filing civil action suits once an employee receives a right-to-sue letter. Here, a barbershop employee filed sexual harassment and retaliation charges against her former employer. At issue was whether the 90-day clock began when the plaintiff received a right-to-sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or when she became eligible to receive one. The Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision, finding that the clock starts upon actual receipt of the notice.

    5. Tip of the Week

    Carolyn Rincon, Senior Employment Counsel for Marsh & McLennan Companies, shares some tips on evaluating whether to bring discovery in-house.

    Visit EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

    These materials have been provided for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. The “Tip of the Week” offers one perspective on possible human resource ideas or business practices. It presents the perspective of an individual not affiliated with Epstein Becker Green and should not be considered legal advice. The content of these materials is copyrighted to Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® is a registered trademark of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

    # vimeo.com/268081177 Uploaded 6 Views 0 Comments

Employment Law This Week®

Epstein Becker Green PRO

Employment Law This Week® tracks the top developments in employment and labor law and workforce management in a matter of minutes every #WorkforceWednesday. Presented by law firm Epstein Becker Green. Learn more at ebglaw.com/employment-law-this-week/

Browse This Channel

Shout Box

Heads up: the shoutbox will be retiring soon. It’s tired of working, and can’t wait to relax. You can still send a message to the channel owner, though!

Channels are a simple, beautiful way to showcase and watch videos. Browse more Channels.