5th Annual Labor & Employment Seminar

Join our Labor & Employment Group and the Firm’s newest partner, Honorable Gene D. Cohen (Ret.), for a fast-paced seminar on cutting edge labor and employment law issues impacting your business. Far from an academic discussion, attendees will get real world, practical guidance from our experienced litigators and a former Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge.

Topics included in this half-day seminar are: 

Labor and Employment Developments from 2012, and an Analysis of What to Expect with Four More Years of the Obama Administration

In this fast-paced session, our panel of experienced Cohen Seglias labor attorneys will discuss the most recent labor and employment law developments, including leading court decisions, key legislative developments, and recent Labor Board initiatives affecting union and non-union employees.

A Judge’s Perspective: Enforcing Non-Competition Agreements

While serving as a Court of Common Pleas Judge from 1988 to 2005, Judge Gene D. Cohen (Ret.) regularly presided over cases involving non-competition agreements, trade secrets, and unfair competition. This session offers attendees a unique opportunity as Judge Cohen will share his candid thoughts on drafting and litigating non-competition agreements, and protecting your company from disloyal employees.

Managing Employee Attendance: the Interplay Among the Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Workers’ Compensation

In today’s challenging economy, maximizing employee productivity – and improving employee attendance rates – is more important than ever. In this session, our panel will provide step-by-step practical advice, in plain English, so that you can get your employees either back to work or off your payroll as quickly as possible, without finding yourself in court.

Fire at Will: Ten Common Mistakes Employers Make During the Termination Process

The overwhelming majority of employment-related litigation stems from terminations. In this session, our panel of labor attorneys will review the top ten mistakes employers make when firing employees. Far from an academic lecture, we will place a high premium on nuts-and-bolts advice so that you can learn from the mistakes of others and push the odds in your favor.

Dates & Locations

March 5, 2013
The Union League
140 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102

March 13, 2013
The Duquesne Club
325 6th Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

March 20, 2013
The Hilton Harrisburg
1 North 2nd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101

This program has been approved for 3 CLE and CPE credits.

For more information or to register, please visit the Cohen Seglias website.

New Gender Equity Notice Requirement for New Jersey Employers

By: Melissa C. Angeline

The New Jersey legislature recently enacted a law requiring employers to post and distribute written notices informing employees of their “right to be free from gender inequity or bias in pay, compensation, benefits or other terms or conditions of employment” under state and federal law. All New Jersey employers with 50 or more employees are subject to this requirement

The written notice must be posted conspicuously in each workplace, in English and Spanish, and provided to all new hires and existing employees. Employers also must re-distribute the notice each year to employees, and at any other time upon request. The law permits employers to deliver the annual notice by various means, including email distribution, paycheck insert, and attachment to the employee handbook. Employers must obtain signed acknowledgments confirming that employees have received, read and fully understand the notice.

Employers should be prepared to post and distribute the notice by November 21, 2012, or if the notice is not available at that time, within 30 days after publication by the New Jersey Division of Labor and Workforce Development.

Melissa C. Angeline is Senior Counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

Pennsylvania Now Requires E-Verify on Public Work

By Mark J. Leavy and Marc Furman

On July 5, 2012, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law the Public Works Employment Verification Act. The law will take effect January 1, 2013.

The law requires contractors and subcontractors on “public work” construction projects, i.e., those subject to the prevailing wage rate laws, to use the federal government’s E-Verify website to confirm that their employees are authorized to work in the United States. This law adds yet another level of administrative compliance for contractors performing public work.

The penalty for failure to utilize the E-Verify system as required under the law is severe. A contractor or subcontractor can be debarred for between 30 days to 3 years depending upon whether the offense is found to be “willful” and if there is a prior history of offenses.

The Pennsylvania Department of General Services shall enforce this law, and is charged with investigating “any credible complaint” of a violation of this law. The Department of General Services is also empowered to conduct random audits to ensure compliance with the law.

Mark J. Leavy is an Associate with Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC and a member of the Labor & Employment Practice Group. He can be reached at 215.564.1700 or mleavy@cohenseglias.com.

Marc Furman is the Chair of the Labor & Employment Practice Group at Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. He can be reached at 215.564.1700 or mfurman@cohenseglias.com.

Supreme Court Limits Prevailing Wage Obligations In Mixed-Funding, Multi-Phase Construction Projects

By: Melissa Angeline

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently limited application of the prevailing wage law to multi-phase construction projects involving a mix of private and public funding. In 500 James Hance Ct. v. Pa. Prevailing Wage Appeals Bd., 33 A.3d 555 (Pa. 2011), the project was bifurcated into two phases, with private funding for the “shell” phase, and public funding for the interior “fit out” of the building. The Prevailing Wage Appeals Board held that prevailing wages were required for both phases of construction. The Commonwealth Court later reversed the Board’s decision, holding that splitting the project into “shell” and “fit out” phases was not an unlawful evasion of prevailing wage rates. The Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that where a bifurcated construction project is financed by private and public funding, and at least one phase is financed entirely by private funds, prevailing wages need only be paid on those phases that receive public funding.

The Court also rejected the Board’s current test for screening out “artful drafting of contracts to evade” payment of prevailing wage rates. Instead, the Court held that “risk allocation” should be a prominent consideration under the Prevailing Wage Act.

Melissa C. Angeline is senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

4th Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar

Please join us for the 4th Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar, scheduled for March 13th in Philadelphia, March 27th in Harrisburg and April 11th in Pittsburgh.

This year’s topics will include:

Cutting-Edge Developments in Labor & Employment Law

In this fast-paced session, we will review recent developments in several areas of the law, including the most common ways employees are challenging their terminations; increased legal protection for employee social media activities; recent case law on drafting employment-related arbitration agreements; the latest on the NLRB’s “quickie” elections rule; and New Jersey’s recently enacted trade secrets statute.

Creating a “Bullet Proof” Employee Handbook

In order to minimize your exposure to employee lawsuits and comply with an ever-increasing maze of federal and state laws and regulations, employers need to make sure that their employee handbook is comprehensive and up-to-date. In this session, we’ll review the key ingredients to include in your handbook. We will also discuss those topics where “less in more” and employers should exercise restraint to avoid compliance issues.

Wage & Hour Law: A Primer on the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Fair Labor Standards Act is the federal wage and hour law which governs the payment of minimum wages and overtime. Even though this law has been around since the New Deal, many employers are still struggling with thorny issues such as classifying employees as “exempt” or “non-exempt”, and calculating overtime in light of bonuses, rest periods, telecommuting, and on-call time. Consequently, there has been an explosion of wage and hour litigation in federal and state courts – particularly with costly class action lawsuits. In this nuts-and-bolts session, we will review the law in plain English so that you can avoid getting caught in the jaws of a nasty lawsuit or Department of Labor audit.

Hot Issues In Discrimination Law

With a heavy emphasis on addressing day-to-day real life situations, we will review the hottest issues in discrimination law, including: what is your obligation to provide a religious accommodation for body art and Muslim religious practices; when will your company be liable for the discriminatory acts of a rogue supervisor; how can you improve employee attendance without violating the FMLA and ADA; best practices to avoid retaliation claims; and what is GINA and why should you care.

For additional information, or to register, please see the event invitation.

Mayor Nutter Signs a Pro-Project Labor Agreement Executive Order for Philadelphia Public Building Projects

By: Mark Leavy and Marc Furman

On November 29, 2011, Mayor Michael A. Nutter signed Executive Order No. 15-11: “Public Works Project Labor Agreements”. The Order strongly recommends - but does not strictly require - the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on public building projects.

Under the Executive Order, a project is “appropriate” for a PLA if it includes any of “the following characteristics”: a) high construction costs, b) multiple crafts or trades, c) “complex labor requirements” that “conflict with existing collective bargaining agreements”, d) completion without delay, and e) the project furthers “urgent City goals.”

All City Agencies are to issue a “Project Review” to the Mayor’s office regarding these “criteria” on building projects with estimated construction costs of $5 million or more. However, the Executive Order declares that projects with lower costs may also be “appropriate” for PLAs and “encourages” City Agencies to review those projects, too.

The Executive Order “does not require” the use of a PLA on any particular Project. However, it does grant the Mayor’s office the authority to “determine that a [PLA] is appropriate” and enter into negotiations with labor organizations “in consultation with the City Agency”.

Such PLAs must have: a) “guarantees” against strikes or lockouts, b) “binding procedures” for jurisdictional disputes between unions, and c) “diversity goals” for labor organizations and contractors. The Mayor’s Office can also require a third-party “Monitor” on the project to review the opportunities provided for “qualified City Residents, minorities, and women.”

This Executive Order has been the subject of both praise and scorn. Either way, both union and non-union contractors alike that are vying for work on public projects must be aware of this development and understand the implication of entering into a PLA.

If you have any questions or would like more information about the Executive Order and its potential impact, please contact Marc Furman or Mark J. Leavy at 215.564.1700 or at mfurman@cohenseglias.com or mleavy@cohenseglias.com.

Marc Furman is the chair and Mark Leavy is an associate in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC.

 

New Jersey Employer Alert: New Posting Requirement Effective November 7, 2011

By: Melissa C. Angeline

On November 7, 2011, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL) released a new 6-page workplace notice for all New Jersey employers. The Employer Obligation to Maintain and Report Records Regarding Wages, Benefits, Taxes and Other Contributions and Assessments Pursuant to State Wage, Benefit and Tax Laws, contains a detailed description of employer recordkeeping requirements under state employment laws and provides contact information for employees or their representatives to report potential violations.

Importantly, the notice went into effect immediately for all new hires. The DOL requires that anyone hired on or after November 7, 2011 receive a copy of the notice “at the time of hire.” Thus, New Jersey employers should distribute copies of the notice to anyone hired on or after November 7, 2011.

As for existing employees, the DOL has established a December 7, 2011 deadline for distributing copies of the notice, either in hard copy or by e-mail, and for posting the notice. Employers must post the notice in hard copy at a conspicuous location in the workplace, and must post the notice electronically on any intranet or internet systems to which all employees have exclusive access.

Employers that typically buy pre-packaged posters covering various federal and state employment laws should contact their vendor immediately to obtain posters updated as of November 7, 2011. In the meantime, employers can download the 6-page notice from the DOL’s internet site and post it alongside their other mandatory notices.

Melissa C. Angeline is senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

NEW UPDATE: Employers Catch A Break With Postponement of Employee Rights Notice Requirement

By: Melissa C. Angeline

In its October 5, 2011 press release, the National Labor Relations Board states that it has postponed the November 2011 deadline for employers to post the “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act” notice. As previously reported, the Board recently established a rule requiring most private-sector employers to post a notice of employee rights as of November 14, 2011. The Board later published the 11 x 17 inch poster on its website.

The Board explained that it decided to postpone the deadline “in order to allow for enhanced education and outreach to employers,” and thereby “ensur[e] broad voluntary compliance” with the rule. According to the Board, this decision “follow[s] queries from businesses and trade organizations indicating uncertainty about which businesses fall under the Board’s jurisdiction.”

However, the Board cautioned that the postponement should not be viewed as a sign of impending change or reversal of the rule, stating that “[n]o other changes in the rule, or in the form or content of the notice, will be made.”

This postponement will not affect pending federal lawsuits seeking to invalidate the rule. However, this delay will provide valuable time for the courts to decide whether to enjoin the rule before the new effective date of January 31, 2012.

At this point, employers need not post the notice contained on the Board’s web site, and may postpone or put on hold any orders of pre-packaged employment law posters containing the Board notice. Employers should continue to check our blog as the deadline for new developments approaches.

Melissa C. Angeline is senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

Update: National Labor Relations Board Releases Employee Rights Poster

The National Labor Relations Board has published its new poster, titled “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act.” As previously reported on our blog, the Board recently adopted a new rule requiring private employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The poster is available for downloading on the Board’s website, and in hard copy from the Board’s regional offices.

The poster informs employees of their right to act together to improve wages and working conditions; to form, join and assist in a union; to bargain collectively with their employer; and to refrain from these activities. The Board also has added a question and answer section to its website, noting that “[s]imilar postings of workplace rights are required under other federal workplace laws.”

This new posting requirement has generated substantial controversy among private-sector employers and business associations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a radio ad campaign titled “Common Sense,” and has also sued the Board in an effort to block the posting requirement. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has argued in its lawsuit that the Board’s rule is unlawful and exceeds the Board’s authority. Among other things, they argue that the posting requirement and creation of a new unfair labor practice for employers violating the rule, exceed the Board’s authority. Other organizations, including the National Manufacturing Association and the National Federation of Independent Business, have brought similar suits against the Board.

As of this date, the courts have not taken any action to delay or reverse the Board’s posting requirement. Unless informed otherwise, employers should be ready to post the notice when it becomes effective on November 14, 2011.

Melissa C. Angeline is senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

National Labor Relations Board to Require Employers to Post Employee Rights Notice

By: Melissa C. Angeline

On August 25, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board announced a new rule that requires private employers to post a notice of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). By November 14, 2011, all employers covered by the Act must post the notice Post.jpgdeveloped by the Board in each workplace, and post the notice electronically on any internet or intranet sites where other personnel rules or policies are posted. This new rule applies to all private-sector employers, with the sole exception of agricultural employers and several other employer types not subject to the NLRA.

The Board has stated that its notice will be similar to the Department of Labor’s Notice of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act, which is mandatory for federal contractors. According to the Board, “the notice states that employees have the right to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form, join and assist a union, to bargain collectively with their employer, and to refrain from any of these activities. It provides examples of unlawful employer and union conduct and instructs employees how to contact the NLRB with questions or complaints.” Employers will be able to download the notice through the Board’s internet site (www.nlrb.gov), and obtain copies from the Board, by November 1, 2011. Failure to post the notice may be used as evidence of an employer’s unlawful motive in other Board proceedings, and will constitute a separate unfair labor practice. Also, failure to post the notice could have the effect of waiving the employer’s defense that an unfair labor practice brought more than 6 months after the event at issue was filed too late and should be dismissed.

We expect that employers will aggressively challenge this rule and pursue this issue up to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, employers should be ready to post the notice when it becomes effective on November 14, 2011.

Melissa C. Angeline is senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

What Employers Can Ask About Criminal Backgrounds during the Hiring Process

By: Melissa C. Angeline

Philadelphia has become the first major city to bar private employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal background. The “Ban the Box” law, otherwise known as the Fair Criminal employment applications.jpgRecord Screening Standards Act, took effect on July 12, 2011. The law has three major requirements, and covers most private employers with 10 or more employees.

1. Employers are barred from asking questions on employment applications about arrests that are not pending and did not lead to a conviction.

2. Employers cannot seek information about an applicant’s criminal convictions during the application process, such as when a job applicant asks about a job opening to when an employment application is accepted or on the application itself.

3. Employers cannot ask an applicant about any criminal conviction before or during a first interview. However, employers may ask about criminal convictions during a second interview of the applicant (if any) or as part of a conditional post-offer criminal history check.

In practical terms, this law means that employers using the same employment application in multiple locations should “black out” or remove questions about criminal history for jobs requiring work in Philadelphia. Employers also need to instruct anyone who interviews or hires employees not to ask about criminal convictions until a second interview or as part of a post-conditional offer criminal history check. Likewise, office workers that speak to callers or visitors asking about possible work, should not ask any questions about criminal backgrounds. Employers are subject to fines of $2,000 for each violation of the Act.

For employers outside Philadelphia, similar laws may be coming soon. Philadelphia’s law has been cited as a “model” by some city and county officials as far away as North Carolina. In addition, it is a hot issue for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which held a public meeting on July 26, 2011 to discuss the use of arrest and conviction records in the hiring process.

Melissa C. Angeline is senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Group of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. She concentrates her practice on representing and counseling employers in all aspects of employment law.

Use of Inflatable Rats by Unions Found Acceptable by NLRB

rat.jpgLook familiar?

If you have not already seen the infamous “inflatable rat” in a neighborhood near you, it is likely that you are going to see one soon. This comes as a result of a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that the use of inflatable rat-shaped balloons - in and of itself – is not a form of picketing and is not “coercive” conduct prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act.

Labor unions have used these large, inflatable rats to draw public attention when they have a dispute at a construction job site - as well as at other locations - to publicize a labor protest and the use of non-union contractors. As a matter of the right to free speech under the First Amendment, many courts have found that unions cannot be restricted from using this form of expression.

Nonetheless - when, where and how unions were allowed to deploy these inflatable rats was subject of certain rules and restrictions under labor law. This has all changed now, and it appears that the old rules are no longer going to apply. This is the result of a NLRB decision issued last month in Sheet Metal Workers Local # 15 (Brandon Regional Hospital), 356 NLRB No. 162 (May 26, 2011).

In Brandon Regional Hospital, the hospital was undergoing a renovation, and the union wanted to protest the hospital’s use of a non-union contractor on the project by picketing at the hospital and generating negative publicity. Since the true target of the picketing is the non-union contractor, the hospital is considered a “secondary employer.” This used to mean that the union’s picketing activities were subject to certain restrictions. For example, where a proper “reserve gate” system has been put in place, a union could only lawfully picket at the gates that the non-union contractor used to access the project site and only when that non-union contractor was performing work at the site.

All that has changed as a result of Brandon Regional Hospital. The NLRB decided that the use of inflatable rats was not a form of picketing and was protected free speech. This is significant because the NLRB’s decision means the previous restrictions do not apply. The inflatable rats can be placed at any location near a project and for any length of time.

Because this decision may still be the subject of further appeal and review by federal courts, this may not be the final chapter in the story. Our Labor & Employment Group will continue to track these, and other important developments, in labor law to keep you in the know.

Maryland's Job Applicant Fairness Act

The “Job Applicant Fairness Act,” (the Act) signed into law on April 12, 2011, prohibits most Maryland employers from using credit reports and credit histories as a means of determining hiring and retention. Generally, employers are prohibited from using an applicant’s or employee’s credit report or credit history for the purpose of denying employment, discharging an employee, or determining compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Credit History.jpg
Importantly, the Act does not affect employers that do not obtain credit information on employees and applicants. Employers may continue to conduct background checks, criminal record checks and obtain consumer reports that do not include credit information, subject to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other laws.

The Act exempts several positions where the use of credit information has been deemed “substantially job-related.” Specifically, the Act exempts the following positions:

  • Managerial positions involving direction or control of part or all of the business;
  • Positions provided expense accounts or corporate credit or debit cards;
  • Positions involving access to personal information of employees, customers or the employer;
  • Positions involving access to the employer’s protected trade secrets and intellectual property, or confidential business information; or
  • Positions involving money-handling (authority to issue payments, collect debts, transfer money, or enter into contracts).

Also, certain categories of employers are exempt from these restrictions. Financial institutions and affiliates, investment advisors registered with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, and employers legally required to obtain credit checks or histories for employment purposes, are not subject to the above restrictions.

Maryland employers must conform their employment policies to these requirements, which are effective as of October 1, 2011. Employees have no private cause of action for violations of the Act, but may file complaints with the Commissioner of Labor & Industry. Employers may be subject to monetary fines for violating the Act.

For questions regarding compliance of the Act, please contact Melissa Angeline.

3rd Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar Recap

On March 24, 2011, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman’s Labor & Employment Group hosted the 3rd Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar, at the Four Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia. About 70 people attended the half-day seminar to learn about topics such as, social media in the workplace, non-competes and unfair competition and traditional labor law. The event also included a look back at the year that was and ahead to 2011 in form of a legislative and case law update.

Case Law/Legislative Update

Partners Marc Furman and Jonathan Landesman gave a brief overview of the impactful labor and employment case law in 2010. It is important to note that a study conducted by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) confirmed that individuals are bringing more charges of workplace discrimination against private employers than ever before.

Topics of interest included Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), “Cat’s Paw Liability”, Medical Leave and the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act.

Social Media in the Workplace

Senior Counsel Melissa C. Angeline gave an overview of social media, and the consequences it can have on workplace productivity. A study produced by Nucleus Research shows that the average employee spends two work hours every day on social media sites. Melissa stressed that simply blocking access to these sites is no longer sufficient, since most employees now have an iPhone, or other device that can easily access the internet. Employers, she said, need to take a proactive approach to policing their employees activities, and monitor what they do in the office.

Unfortunately, simply controlling the issue at work does not release employers from liability. Employees who keep personal social networking profiles on sites like Facebook, and identify themselves with your company, leave you at risk as well. Employers need to establish a social media policy, and enforce strict guidelines for what is and is not acceptable in world of social media, keeping in mind the position of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the issue of employee free speech,

Protecting Your Business Against Unfair Competition

Partner Roy S. Cohen joined Jonathan Landesman in speaking about how to protect your company’s confidential information and how to create an effective non-competition agreement. The main take away from the presentation was that every employer needs to have a thorough and up-to-date employee handbook, and also employment agreements, where appropriate, setting forth non-competition/non-solicitation rules. In our ever changing world, every company should have their attorney review their handbooks annually, to ensure it is in compliance with the latest guidelines.

Traditional Labor Law

Marc Furman presented an update on traditional labor law. Through real life examples, Marc highlighted what employers need to be aware of when it comes to dealing with the NLRB and National Labor Relations Act, especially when filing unfair labor practice charges.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the seminar materials, please email your request to zklein@cohenseglias.com.

Upcoming Event: 3rd Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar

Each spring, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC provides employers with an annual review of the prior year and an update on various labor and employment law topics. Please join our labor and employment attorneys for a half-day briefing on developments in case law, statutes and regulatory trends that could have an impact on your business.

The 3rd Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar, scheduled for March 24, 2011 in Philadelphia and March 30, 2011 in Pittsburgh, will address the following topics:

Case Law and Legislative Update

Discussion and analysis of significant trends and developments in 2010 in labor and employment law, with particular emphasis on how cases decided in the past year affect your business from a practical perspective.

Social Media in the Workplace

The growth of social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, has exploded in recent years. However, employers have been slow to adopt policies for appropriate use of these web sites; thereby exposing themselves to risks such as harassment, dissemination of trade secrets and lost productivity. A recent case decided by the Labor Board, in which a woman was terminated after posting critical remarks regarding her supervisor on Facebook, may serve as a template for future legal opinions, as it is one of the first cases in this evolving area. Learn the do's and don'ts of social networking and how to implement best practices to help minimize your risk.

Protecting Your Business Against Unfair Competition

How can you protect your business when a trusted employee suddenly quits and joins forces with your direct competitor? In this session, we will discuss the nuts and bolts of trade secret law and non-compete agreements, how to be proactive and what can be done after you discover employee disloyalty.

What Every Employer Needs to Know About Traditional Labor Law

With the Labor Board now up to its full complement of members, insight will be provided on recent developments, cases and trends. We will discuss topics such as "protected and concerted activities" and "employee suggestion committees" which affect every union and non-union employer.

For additional information and to register, please click here.

Recent Developments in the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Law

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the comprehensive health care reform law (Reform) to expand health care coverage in the United States.

Impact of Comprehensive Health Care Reform Law on Employers

It is an understatement to say that the Reform bombards employers with information - and fair to say that the Reform’s many new obligations present a potential compliance nightmare for them.Healthcare symbol.jpg

The Reform is an ever moving target. Employers are faced with the challenge of effectively managing their business in light of the “bigger picture” financial and tax implications of the Reform. This situation is further complicated because different aspects of the Reform become effective at different times over the next several years. Even more confusing, interpretations of the Reform’s provisions keep changing.

Recent Amendments to the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Law

Initially, the Reform required employers to report group health care plan costs on all 2011 W-2 forms. On October 12, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that this requirement would not go into effect until the 2012 tax year.

Given its purpose to expand health care coverage, the Reform subjects employer-sponsored health care plans to non-discrimination rules under IRS Code Section 105(h). In a nutshell, plans cannot “discriminate” in favor of highly compensated employees (HCEs) by giving HCEs extra or excessive benefits. Under the grandfathering rules - a critical aspect of the Reform - certain existing employer-sponsored health care plans could enjoy either a delayed effective date for compliance with, or a total exception from, certain (but not all) of the insurance reforms and new coverage mandates. Grandfathered plans do not have to comply with the non-discrimination rules.

Changes in the Grandfathering Rules

Originally, grandfathered status could be lost if an employer significantly changed the deductibles, co-payments or benefits offered or changed carriers. Specifically, the limitation on the ability of an employer to keep its grandfathered status if it shopped around for, and selected, a new insurance policy, was heavily criticized. On November 15, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Labor (DOL) and the IRS announced an amendment to the grandfathering rules in response to the criticism. This revision lifted the restriction against entering a new insurance policy.

Whether or not a health care plan is grandfathered will determine an employer’s compliance obligations. It is critical that employers fully understand that changes in their health benefit plans could result in the loss of grandfathered status. The loss of grandfathered status triggers the obligation to comply with coverage mandates and non-discrimination rules that would otherwise be inapplicable.

Comprehension of the grandfathering and non-discrimination rules is essential for employers to be able to work with their benefits plans and avoid potentially costly missteps. HHS continues to field many questions, and to revise and clarify the rules governing the Reform. The Labor & Employment Group at Cohen Seglias will continue to monitor any developments regarding the evolving comprehensive health care reform law, and provide updates regarding any significant changes. Should you have any questions or concerns about how the latest changes may affect your business, please do not hesitate to contact Marc Furman or Jonathan Landesman.

Family and Medical Leave Act: Frequently Asked Questions

In a recent survey of 441 human resource professionals, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)  was overwhelmingly identified as the single mosFMLA.jpgt problematic federal employment law. The FMLA, which covers employers with at least 50 employees, allows eligible employees to take temporary leaves of absence for certain family and medical reasons. Employers have long struggled with administering the FMLA, and expressed frustration about the FMLA’s pro-employee framework and potential for abuse. To help combat these problems, below is a list of commonly asked questions about the basic FMLA requirements for employers and employees, along with some answers.

Is your company covered by the FMLA?

In general, the FMLA covers all private employers with at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius, during 20 or more workweeks of either the current or prior calendar year. If those two requirements are met, your company is covered by the FMLA.

Who is eligible to take FMLA leave?

Employees of a covered employer must have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months immediately preceding the first date of their FMLA leave. Also, the stated reason for the leave must be covered by the FMLA.

What types of leave are covered by the FMLA?

In general, the FMLA allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period for the birth of a child (or placement for adoption or foster care), to care for the employee’s own serious health condition, and to care for an immediate family member’s serious health condition. The FMLA also provides up to 12 weeks of leave for issues relating to care of covered military members, and up to 26 weeks of leave in a 12-month period to care for various personal and family issues arising for certain “military exigencies.”

Does your company have a written FMLA policy?

All employers covered by the FMLA are required to have a written FMLA policy. The policy informs employees of their rights and obligations under the FMLA. The written policy serves as a quick reference guide for the person administering your FMLA policy.

Do you have employees in New Jersey?

New Jersey is among a handful of states with family or medical leave laws governing private employers. If your company has at least one (1) employee in New Jersey, that employee may be eligible for certain types of family leave provided by New Jersey’s Family Leave Act (NJFLA) – even if all of your other employees work in Pennsylvania or Delaware for example. Compared to the FMLA, the NJFLA has fewer requirements to qualify for leave, and provides different types of leave. In rare instances, an employee may be able to “stack” leave under both laws and take up to 24 weeks of leave in a 12-month period.

Is your FMLA policy posted and included in your handbook?

Your FMLA policy must be posted in a “conspicuous” location in your workplace, i.e., the employee lunchroom or other location where mandatory employer posters have been posted. If your company has an employee handbook, the FMLA policy also must be included in the handbook. Also, companies that have employees in New Jersey must have separate policies that encompass both the FMLA and NJFLA.

Does your policy incorporate recent amendments to the FMLA?

In 2008, the FMLA was amended to include leave for issues relating to care of covered military members and leave to handle various personal and family issues arising from qualifying “military exigencies.” These amendments must be included in your policy, and distributed to all new and existing employees.

Who is administering your FMLA policy?

Employers should not rely on supervisors to administer the FMLA policy. Rather, a human resource manager or other management-level employee must be given responsibility for administering and enforcing the FMLA policy. Their duties will include satisfying record-keeping requirements, making decisions about leave eligibility, ensuring that medical and personal information is kept strictly confidential, and communicating with employees about FMLA requests and other issues. Your administrator also should look for signs of FMLA abuse or fraud, and seek assistance when questions or disputes arise.

Even though the above questions and answers cover the most basic FMLA requirements, it is these basic requirements that employers most frequently violate.

Construction Workplace Misclassification Act: Pennsylvania Cracks Down on Independent Contractor Misclassification in the Construction Industry

On October 13, 2010, Governor Ed Rendell signed into law House Bill 400, establishing the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (CWMA). This new law goes into effect February 10, 2011, and will have a dramatic impact on all construction companies utilizing independent contractors.
misclassification.jpg

Determining Independent Contractor Status

Under the CWMA, an individual who performs construction work may be considered and paid as an independent contractor only if:

  • The individual has a written contract
  • The individual is free from control or direction over performance of such services, both under the contract and in fact
  • The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business

With respect to the third criteria above, the CWMA states that an individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business only if:

  • The individual possesses his/her own tools
  • The individual's arrangement is such that he/she can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the individual’s performance of services through a business in which the individual has a proprietary interest
  • The individual maintains a separate business location
  • The individual previously worked as a bona fide independent contractor (as defined by the CWMA) or holds him/herself out to the public as a bona fide independent contractor.

Compliance With CWMA Will Likely Require Reclassification of Workers

Under the CWMA, there are a lot of hurdles to clear in order to establish that a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. We suspect that the overwhelming majority of workers in the construction industry in Pennsylvania who are currently classified as independent contractors will have to be reclassified as employees in order to comply with the CWMA. Notably, under the CWMA, the failure to withhold federal or state income taxes or pay unemployment compensation contributions or workers compensation premiums will not be considered in determining whether an individual is an independent contractor.

Consequences for Misclassification

Under the CWMA, the consequences for misclassifying an individual as an independent contractor are severe. Administrative penalties may be up to $1,000 for the first violation, and up to $2,500 for each subsequent violation. These penalties can stack up quickly because under the CWMA each misclassified worker is considered a separate offense. In addition, violations of the CWMA can lead to a "stop work" order requiring the cessation of work by misclassified individuals within 24 hours, individual liability, and criminal sanctions.

The CWMA was supported by organized labor, including the Carpenters Union. Although the CWMA deals only with the construction industry, we see this law as part of a nationwide trend by state and federal agencies to crack down on employers who misclassify their workers. For example, there are two currently pending federal bills, the Fair Playing Field Act of 2010 and the Misclassification Prevention Act, addressing the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors.

Please contact Jonathan Landesman of the Labor & Employment Group at Cohen Seglias if you need assistance with workplace classifications.

September 30, 2010 Deadline to File EE0-1 Rapidly Approaching

September 30, 2010 is the deadline to file the Employer Information Report, otherwise known as an EEO-1, with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC).

Do you know if you are required to file? If so, have you gathered all the information you need? If you do not know what the EEO-1 is, or it has slipped your mind, there is not much time left to handle this important administrative chore.eeo-1.jpg

Who Must File?

An EEO-1 must be completed by every business that employs 100 or more employees. Keep in mind that federal contractors with contracts of $50,000 or more must complete an EEO-1 if they employ 50 or more employees.

What Information is Required?

An EEO-1 essentially requires you to provide the ethnicity and gender of your employees by their job position and category, along with other information about your company. General instructions, as well as answers to frequently asked questions about the process can be found here.

Compliance Tips

The preferred method for filing the EEO-1 is by completing and submitting it entirely online. The EEOC's website provides some helpful compliance information.

Penalties

If you have questions regarding the EE0-1, reach out to your attorney for help before it is too late to file. Penalties for failure to file an EEO-1 can include a court order requiring future filing. For federal contractors, the stakes can be higher: record keeping violations up to and including debarment may result.

Please contact Marc Furman or Jonathan Landesman of the Labor & Employment Group at Cohen Seglias if you need assistance complying with the EEOC's reporting requirements.