On April 16, 2015, the EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would amend the regulations and interpretive guidance under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as they relate to employer wellness programs. A copy of the proposed rule can be found here. Barnes & Thornburg has issued an Employment Alert on the proposed regulations. This proposed rule was highly anticipated as recent lawsuits filed by the EEOC raised questions about when wellness plans violated the ADA.
Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined an employer $130,000 for making employees sign confidentiality agreements during an investigation. The agreement stated that the employees could be terminated if they discussed the investigation with anyone outside the company without prior approval of the company’s legal department. The SEC charged the company with violating whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits companies from taking any action to impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC. This case is…READ MORE
Put an asterisk on my February blog entry that “spouse means spouse” under the FMLA. In late March, a federal judge in Wichita Falls, Texas, issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor – to keep it from enforcing its new and expanded definition of “spouse” after being challenged by the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska. Those four states object to the Department of Labor’s revised definition of “spouse” to include same-sex spouses because they claim the agency’s new rule would…READ MORE
Many employers who negotiate settlements to end a hard-fought battle with a former employee prefer an agreement that the employee will never work for them again. After all, it is perfectly understandable that after a company spends untold thousands in legal bills and severance wishes for complete closure on a difficult chapter, as well as some certainty that they won’t have to worry about the possibility that the employee – now armed with settlement funds – would try another lawsuit based on a failure to…READ MORE
When employers were looking for certainty in the ongoing debate about after-acquired evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “No, thanks.” Instead, the high court let stand a Second Circuit court decision in which an employer was allowed to use evidence to support that it fired an employee for breaking work rules. In Weber v. Tada, 589 Fed. Appx. 563 (2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2014) the Supreme Court recently declined to grant certiorari, which means that the split among the lower courts is likely…READ MORE