By: Scott J. Connolly and Sandra E. Kahn
On November 22, a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary order that temporarily blocks the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing changes to the salary basis for white collar overtime exemptions. The new salary rule, which was to become effective on December 1, 2016 would have required employers to increase exempt employees’ minimum salary from $23,660 to $47,476. The preliminary court order blocking the rule appears to apply to all public and private employers nationwide.
Find out how the judge’s order will affect the new salary rule, which was to become effective on December 1. Read this month’s Employment Law Alert.
By: Sandra E. Kahn
On December 1, 2016, any employees who earn less than $47,476 annually will be entitled to overtime and must be treated as non-exempt, as per the U.S. Department of Labor’s final rule (“Final Rule”).
Don’t wait any longer to address this critical change in the law.
Find out how the Final Rule will affect your current employee classifications and pay practices, and the consequences of not complying with the law.
Read this month’s Employment Law Alert.
New Federal Law Protects Trade Secrets But Also Requires Changes to Employee and Contractor Agreements
By: Sandra E. Kahn
The new Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) is expected to be signed into law by President Obama. The Act will allow claims for trade secret theft to be brought under a federal civil cause of action.
Under certain circumstances, the Act will provide protection for whistleblowers who divulge trade secrets to the government in order to report wrongdoing. As such, employers will now have to inform their employees of that protection in any agreement or contract. It is advised that employers consult with their counsel to revise contracts as necessary.
For a more detailed explanation of the DTSA, read the full post on our Good Company blog.
This summer, the family-owned grocery store chain Market Basket has been engaged in a contentious and public dispute over ownership and control of the chain. As a result, thousands of jobs have hung in the balance. In a joint letter, the Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New Hampshire recently used the dispute to remind Market Basket of its legal obligations to employees. The joint letter applies to employers generally, and provides a helpful synopsis of some of the obligations and risks involved in employee terminations.
For further information or questions about employee terminations, contact a member of our Employment Law Group.
According to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) statistics, 2013 was the fourth straight year when charges alleging unlawful retaliation by employers was the leading type of discrimination alleged. Retaliation claims accounted for 41.1% of the charges filed with the EEOC in 2013, up three percent from 2012. Retaliation is now the most common type of discrimination alleged nationally, topping both race and gender. What are retaliation claims and what steps can employers take to reduce their risks?
Still need more information? Try one of our other resources:
- Avoiding Employee Claims of Unlawful Retaliation
- Retaliation Once Again Is the Top Type of Claim Filed with the EEOC
Please feel free to contact any member of our Employment Law Group with any questions.
MBBP’s Employment Law Clip Series provides quick, easy-to-digest snapshots of common Employment issues, as well as practical information on how to avoid complicated, expensive and time-consuming pitfalls. Visit our YouTube page to see all Employment Law Clip videos.
During the past several years, there have been various legislative initiatives in Massachusetts which, if successful, would have regulated and/or curtailed the use by employers of non-competition agreements. On September 10, 2013, in testimony before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Gregory Bialecki, Governor Patrick’s Secretary of Housing and Workforce Development, testified that the Patrick Administration supports the “outright elimination of enforceability” of all non-compete agreements in Massachusetts, regardless of duration or geographic scope. Secretary Bialecki’s testimony finally confirmed publicly what many assumed was the Patrick Administration’s position on this controversial subject.
Last Thursday, the Patrick Administration took a bigger step towards its goal of eliminating non-compete agreements by way of an economic stimulus bill that includes a proposed new Chapter 93K to enact the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) in Massachusetts. The proposed Chapter also includes a provision which would render “void and unenforceable” any non-compete agreement with an employee or independent contractor.
For more information on what this means for employers, please see the full Alert.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact a member of MBBP’s Employment Law Group.
Student internships have become increasingly popular, and while internships generally benefit employers and interns alike, there is uncertainty regarding whether internships may be paid or unpaid. This video explains the importance of distinguishing between the nonprofit and for profit sector and the regulations that apply to each.
Want more information? Try some of our other resources on this topic:
Please feel free to contact any member of our Employment Law Group with any questions on paid or unpaid internships.
MBBP’s Employment Law Clip Series provides quick, easy-to-digest snapshots of common Employment issues, as well as practical information on how to avoid complicated, expensive and time-consuming pitfalls. Stay tuned for the next topic on Restrictive Employment Agreements.