There are many reasons why an employer may want to prevent employees from discussing their wages, salaries, bonuses, or other compensation. Pay disparities - even if based on differences in experience, training, or pay - can disrupt the working environment and lead to unhappy employees. Such discussions may lead to an increase in the number of employees demanding raises and seeking new positions if not granted. In the worst-case scenario, the information can lead to discrimination lawsuits with the high legal fees and detrimental reputation damage that such lawsuits cause.
More employers are opting for a remote workforce. Whether due to the recent COVID-19 health crisis's challenges, costs associated with a more traditional workspace, keeping your talent on the team after a move, or other issues with a conventional commute to the office more employers than ever are taking advantage of the availability of technology and the possibility of having remote team members.
Employment-related legislation continues to be a hot topic around the country. A number of state legislators have passed aggressive laws aimed at impacting employer-employee relationships. One of the most unique and far-reaching of these laws was just signed into law in the State of New Jersey. On August 16, 2019, the New Jersey Wage Theft Act became law.
A significant new regulation regarding the trucking industry has just had its effective date delayed by two years. The Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) rule was originally scheduled to go into effect on February 7, 2020. Instead, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has pushed back the rule’s implementation to February 7, 2022.
Medical marijuana is still a controversial subject in the field of employment, even as it becomes less controversial generally. Thirty-three states now provide for legal medical marijuana. Many of those states legalized medical marijuana after the success of ballot measures in statewide elections. At the same time, the drug remains a controlled substance at the federal level and the Controlled Substances Act states that marijuana has no commonly accepted medical usage.
Given the relative newness of cyber insurance policies, comparatively little case law exists interpreting these policies in the context of claims. Courts have sometimes struggled with how to interpret unique policy provisions in the context of variations of computer fraud. While some courts have taken highly technical approaches to the language contained in the policy, other courts have taken a more relaxed approach based on the understanding of the parties. A recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights these issues. Principle Solutions Group, LLC v. Ironhorse Indemnity, Inc. tackled a claim dispute between an insured business and an insurance company involving a cyber claim.
State governments have started to take strong action against what they view as unfair employment practices. Legislatures are passing new laws about hiring practices quite frequently over the last few years. These laws seek to create greater fairness in the hiring and salary negotiation process in order to overcome inequalities such as the gender pay gap and other issues.
For the past several years, attempts at the federal and state level to clarify rules on joint employment situations have caused considerable heartburn and anxiety for employers. While several states and the Obama administration attempted to broaden the situations in which companies could be held liable for joint employers, other states and the Trump administration have pushed back and sought to protect many types of companies from being held accountable as joint employers.
Companies without cyber insurance can find themselves in difficult situations. As more and more vital business functions migrate to electronic systems, companies without cyber insurance have to try and find coverage for any damage to their systems through traditional insurance policies. That approach can work depending on the specifics of a policy and a claim, but it might lead to additional legal costs fighting with the insurance company.
No employer wants to face a class action lawsuit. Defending a class action lawsuit is an extremely costly endeavor, one where the legal fees begin mounting very early in the process. Such lawsuits often take far longer than traditional litigation to reach a resolution. Cases can easily take five to ten years before the final trial begins. These two factors often force class action defendants into settlement early in the proceedings if they cannot win dismissal of the case at one of the preliminary proceedings.