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.
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.
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.
In the aftermath of California’s aggressive attempts to crack down on the “gig” economy, other states have moved as well, though often in different directions. While many states have moved to pass laws specifically designed to protect the status of “gig” workers, New Jersey is in the process of passing its own attempt to regulate these workers. Indeed, the proposed New Jersey legislation would go so far that it would classify almost all workers in the state as employees and make it incredibly difficult for someone to claim independent contractor status.
It was expected that California’s Assembly Bill 5 passed late last year would spawn tons of litigation. The law radically changed how workers from uber drivers to television show writers were classified. Those negatively impacted by the law aggressively lobbied for changes and exemptions while planning litigation should their lobbying efforts fail.
There has been an ongoing fight over how to define employees for the past few decades. As technology has re-shaped the workforce, this fight has gotten more intense. State and federal governments have struggled to set clear lines dividing independent contractors from employees for a number of purposes, including taxation and the application of workplace benefits. These benefits and taxes add on average 20% to 30% to the cost of hiring and paying a worker.