The EEOC has been challenging the legality of releases, attacking certain language that some employers consider standard.  The EEOC responds that it is merely acting consistently with its 1997 Enforcement Guidance on what it considers “non-waivable rights.”  So, what has drawn the EEOC’s adverse attention?  Continue Reading Release Language Hazards and How to Fix Them

To Andy Griffith Show aficionados, Andy was a true leader. Barney? Well, not so much. Why? Barney thought his job was to enforce rules, that any infraction had to be punished, that only then could appropriate respect for the rules and for authority be engendered. These sound like good things. So why did Barney seem to get it so wrong?  Continue Reading Proper Tone In Performance Management – Be an Andy, Not a Barney

Under Section 83, of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) restricted stock and other property that is transferred to a service provider (e.g., an employee or director) for services is taxable when the service provider’s rights in the property are no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.  The Department of Treasury recently issued final regulations under Section 83 that clarify what events constitute a “substantial risk of forfeiture.” The final regulations provide that a substantial risk of forfeiture may be established only if a service provider’s rights in transferred property are either (i) conditioned on the performance, or refraining from performance (e.g., as a result of a non-competition agreement), of substantial services, or (ii) subject to a condition related to the purpose of the transfer (e.g., performance-based awards). In addition, to determine if a substantial risk of forfeiture exists, both the likelihood that a forfeiture event will occur and the likelihood that it actually will be enforced must be established by the underlying facts and circumstances. Continue Reading Recent IRS Guidance Under Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code Clarifies the Definition of a “Substantial Risk of Forfeiture”

In a short ruling issued Thursday, April 24, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) granted Northwestern University’s request for review of a regional director’s decision that Northwestern football players are primarily employees and therefore can be represented by a union.  Readers will recall the extensive discussion triggered first by a petition for representation filed in late January by CAPA, the College Athletes Players Association.  NLRB Regional Director Peter Ohr later found that the players were primarily employees and scheduled a union representation vote.  The vote is set for today, April 25.

Northwestern was critical of the Regional Director’s findings and filed a petition asking the NLRB for a review (and reversal) of the decision.  The NLRB granted the review.  The NLRB determined that the ruling raised substantial issues that deserved a review by the NLRB.  The vote will still occur.  However, the results of the vote will not be made public until after the NLRB completes its review of the decision.

Stay tuned!

On Tuesday April 8, 2014, what is now known as National Equal Pay Day, President Obama took two executive actions aimed at narrowing the wage gap between men and women.

Noting that women are the primary breadwinners in 40% of U.S. Households, while bringing home 23% less than their male counterparts, the President signed a Presidential Memorandum which instructs the Secretary of Labor to propose regulations, within 120 days of the Memorandum, requiring federal contractors to submit summary data on employee compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race, to the Department of Labor.   Those regulations would then require the Department of Labor to use that data in a way that would encourage an employers’ voluntary compliance with current equal pay laws, effectively focusing the Department’s efforts toward reducing discrepancies. Continue Reading Executive Actions Aimed at Equal Pay for Women

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Director has set April 25 as the date for the union vote for Northwestern University’s scholarship football players.  As readers of this blog will recall, that vote will determine whether the scholarship football players elect the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) as their bargaining representative.  It is still not clear whether the vote will actually take place on April 25, however, because Northwestern University already has announced its intention to appeal.

Is this the beginning of the end of college football as we know it?  Some argue that the end already has begun, with the “big money” of television and the corresponding commercialization prevalent in the sport.  Some argue that in today’s major college football and basketball, the phrase “student-athlete” is a misnomer.

Has the end begun?  Perhaps, but as predicted below, look for a legislative initiative to be triggered. Continue Reading Further Reflections on Unions in College Football – Is “student athlete” a misnomer?

Readers of this blog will recall our post on January 30 of this year, found here, regarding the effort by certain Northwestern University football players to unionize scholarship players on the team.  Many pundits (including this one) predicted that even this National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would not find that the players were employees.  Wrong (at least so far)!  Continue Reading NLRB Regional Director Finds that Scholarship Football Players at Northwestern are Employees, not “Primarily Students” and Orders Union Election

Employers have long been under an obligation to provide employees and prospective employees with prior written notice that a credit report – a “consumer report” in the language of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) – may be obtained about them.  The FCRA specifically requires this notice to be “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,” although the Act elsewhere clarifies that the disclosure may also contain an authorization by the employee or applicant for procurement of the report.  Recent court decisions, settlements, and new lawsuits have highlighted the importance of ensuring compliance with this provision of the FCRA.
Continue Reading Employers Cautioned to Review Disclosures for FCRA Compliance

Readers of our series of posts on D.R. Horton will recall our prediction that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) would continue its attacks on certain arbitration agreements.  As predicted, the NLRB’s administrative law judges (ALJ) continue to strike down any arbitration agreements that waive class or collective action claims and allow arbitration of only individual claims.  The ALJs consistently find that such agreements violate employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity. Continue Reading Delay in Supreme Court Review of D.R. Horton Continues to Cost Employers Enforcing Arbitration Agreements

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.