Technical Foul – Your March Madness Office Bracket May Be Illegal

March Madness has arrived!  The 2018 NCAA Basketball Tournaments tip-off March 15 and continue through the Women’s and Men’s National Championship Games on April 1 and 2 respectively. With this, comes the American tradition of companies and their employees betting on tournament outcomes through office bracket pools.      

As lawyers, we have to point out that your company’s March Madness pool is very likely illegal under at least three federal gambling laws (the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, and the Uniform Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) and many state laws.  And we would be remiss to not mention that there is a parade of horribles that could happen from permitting such workplace wagering. 

Continue reading “Technical Foul – Your March Madness Office Bracket May Be Illegal”

U.S. Department of Labor Announces New “PAID” Program for Settling FLSA Claims

On March 6, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) announced a new pilot program through which employers may settle potential overtime and minimum wage claims under the FLSA by paying back pay owed to the affected employee(s), but without paying civil penalties or liquidated damages.  The Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program will be available for six months, after which the Department will evaluate the viability of the program.  This program is purely voluntary, both for employers, in that they would need to self-disclose the violation(s) to the WHD, and employees, who may choose to accept the back pay being offered by the employer as full settlement of the potential claim, or decline the offer and file suit, thus preserving the right to recover liquidated damages if successful.  If the employee chooses to accept the back pay, and thus settle the potential claim by signing a release of that claim, the WHD will only approve a release if it is tailored to the identified violations and the time period covered by the back wages payment.  Employers are not eligible for the program if they are already under investigation by the WHD, involved in litigation or arbitration regarding the particular claim, or the employee has already communicated an interest in litigating or settling the issue.  Claims that could be resolved through this program include misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime or failure to pay for “off the clock” work.

Continue reading “U.S. Department of Labor Announces New “PAID” Program for Settling FLSA Claims”

Congress Attempts to Offer Relief to Businesses Faced with ADA Access Lawsuits

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires “places of public accommodation,” such as retail businesses and restaurants, to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Common architectural features that permit access include handicap parking, curb cuts, wheelchair ramps and other design modifications. The ADA provides a private right of action to force a non-compliant establishment to make the necessary physical alterations to allow access. If the lawsuit is successful, the ADA provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees—a prospect that has fueled the proliferation of ADA lawsuits.

Continue reading “Congress Attempts to Offer Relief to Businesses Faced with ADA Access Lawsuits”

Hold the Phone! Reimbursing Employees for Cell Phone Use in California

It is well known that employers must reimburse California employees for cell phone use when employees are required to use their personal cell phones for business purposes. Reimbursement is required even if the employee does not actually incur extra expenses as a result of his or her use. However, what is not well understood is how much must be reimbursed.

Continue reading “Hold the Phone! Reimbursing Employees for Cell Phone Use in California”

Check Your Employment At-Will Disclaimers: New Jersey Appellate Court Scrutinizes Company’s Code of Conduct

A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division is a glaring reminder for employers in New Jersey and elsewhere to review their employee handbooks, manuals and other codes of conduct periodically to ensure that their employment at-will disclaimer language is clear and prominent in compliance with the seminal decision on this issue, Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. 99 N.J. 302, modified, 101 N.J. 10 (1985), and its progeny.

Continue reading “Check Your Employment At-Will Disclaimers: New Jersey Appellate Court Scrutinizes Company’s Code of Conduct”

New Jersey District Court Judge Discards Jury’s $50 Million Punitive Damage Award to Age Discrimination Plaintiff

About a year ago, we published an article on the firm’s LaborSphere blog about a $51.4 million jury award to a former Lockheed Martin employee who alleged age discrimination when he was let go as part of a company-wide reduction in force (“RIF”).  At the time of the verdict, press coverage speculated that the multimillion dollar verdict was roughly five times more than any prior award, throughout the country, in a single-plaintiff discrimination case.  Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Bumb tossed out the $50 million punitive damages award because the plaintiff failed to show that Lockheed Martin’s upper management was involved in or indifferent to the discriminatory conduct.

Continue reading “New Jersey District Court Judge Discards Jury’s $50 Million Punitive Damage Award to Age Discrimination Plaintiff”