Written by: Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. and Jeff Daitz, Esq. That's right! Effective March 18, 2019, employment contracts, discrimination, harassment or retaliation related settlement agreements can no longer contain non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) against the employee if it has the “purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment…” This warrants repeating-provisions in any employment contract or settlement agreement that have the purpose or effect

Written by: Allison Averbuch, Esq. On March 7, 2019, the Department of Labor issued a proposed rule change that would raise the salary test for exemption from overtime pay from $23,660 per year ($455 per week) to $35,308 per year ($679 per week). What does the proposed rule change mean for my business? If the rule becomes final, many employees making between $23,660 and $35,508 will no longer meet the

Written by: Allison Averbuch, Esq. In January, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., walked back Obama-era collective-bargaining decisions. Overruling NLRB precedent established during the Obama administration, the SuperShuttle decision marks a return to the common-law agency test for determining whether workers are independent contractors or employees. If workers are considered independent contractors, then the collective bargaining and organizing rights available to employees under the National

Written by: Don Benson, Esq.  The U.S. Department of Labor issued a new Opinion Letters on November 8, 2018, which will be of interest to many employers with tipped employees. History of Issue. On 01/16/2009 the DOL issued an Opinion Letter which was withdrawn for further study on 03/02/09.  The DOL has now reissued that earlier Opinion Letter in its entirety as official Wage and Hour Division policy. I. Tipped Employees in Different

By: Don Benson, Esq. and Chas Whitehead1) If your company has employees who drive on the job in Georgia, significant changes to Georgia law go into effect on July 1, 2018. Key changes include (1) restricting drivers from physically holding or otherwise supporting their devices while driving unless it is a wearable voice-based communication device (such as a Bluetooth earpiece or smartwatch), and (2) a broadening of the definition of “wireless

By Don Benson, Esq. A new Eleventh Circuit case is being criticized for changing the standard for summary judgment in a discrimination case. Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc., No. 17-11802 (June 1, 2018) This is incorrect. Although it does not raise the bar for employers on summary judgment and does not change prior case law; it does emphasize an important point for Employers when addressing both Plaintiff/Employee’s direct evidence and circumstantial theories for proving discrimination in

Written by: Don Benson, Esq. Every summer, many employers take on “interns” and ask whether the intern must be paid. If interns, trainees and students are “employees” of a “for-profit” employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, then they must be paid minimum wage and overtime. Courts have used the “primary beneficiary test” to determine whether an intern or student is, in fact, an employee under the FLSA. In short, this

In this short informative video presented by Columbus CEO, Columbus partner Melanie Slaton discusses the importance of having a harassment policy for your workplace and why employees should have a better understanding about what harassment is to help prevent issues from arising.

by:  Ashik Jahan, Esq. & Carolin Esterl On August 28, 2017, USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) made an announcement stating that they will begin to “phase-in” interviews for employment-based cases effective on October 1, 2017. The announcement stated that “adjustment of status applications based on employment”—i.e., categories EB-1 through EB-5—will be affected.  At this time, USCIS has not provided direction on how the “phase-in” process will proceed. Thus,

By Don Benson, Esq. and Eric Hoffman, Esq. When accommodating a deaf patient, what evidence proves effective communication under Title III of the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) of 1973? A new Eleventh Circuit case [here] declares that the correct standard examines whether the deaf patient experienced an impairment in his or her ability to communicate medically relevant information with hospital staff. This focus is