Blog

DISCLAIMER: All content provided in the HRA-NCA Member Forum(s) is for informational purposes only. HRA-NCA makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on the site or found by following any link herein. HRA-NCA will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information, nor for the availability of this information. HRA-NCA will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. HRA-NCA is not responsible for the republishing of the content found on this site without permission.

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Jan 18, 2012

There were a number of significant state and federal court decisions that have altered the landscape of trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law in various jurisdictions, along with significant legislative state efforts to modify trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law in various jurisdictions. At the federal level, the Patent Reform Act was passed and there have also been efforts to modify the CFAA. 

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Jan 10, 2012

With only days left in the term of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) Member Craig Becker, the Board announced that it adopted final rules that will significantly expedite the processing of election petitions filed by unions. The new rules will:

1. Provide an NLRB hearing officer with the ability to limit the evidence that can be introduced at a representation case hearing. 

2. Provide the hearing officer with the authority to deny a party the right to file a post-hearing brief. 

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Nov 7, 2011

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) adopted a new standard that changes the standard governing “adverse employment actions” under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX).  Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., Case No. 09-002, 2011 DOL Ad. Rev. Bd. LEXIS 83 (ARB Sept. 13, 2011).  Now, according to the ARB, an employee need not experience a “tangible” consequence as a result of his or her protected activity.  In addition, the U.S.

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Aug 12, 2011

OFCCP Releases Spring 2011 Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Jul 7, 2011

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Dukes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., which is expected to dramatically change how workplace class actions are structured and defended.

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Jun 10, 2011

On May 3, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2011-36 (the “Notice”), requesting comments on several Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provisions that are effective in 2014, including (1) the penalties for failure to offer affordable coverage (the “Play or Pay Penalty”), (2) the prohibition on waiting periods in excess of 90-days, and (3) the requirement that large employers automatically enroll full-time employees for health care coverage.  The Notice offers a glimpse into how the IRS intends to interpret these provisions following the close of the comme

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Apr 7, 2011

Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) on September 25, 2008, effective January 1, 2009. In so doing, Congress expressly rejected several Supreme Court decisions that had narrowly construed the term “disability” by, among other ways, holding that mitigating measures were to be considered in assessing whether an impairment was “substantially limiting.” Armed with statistics about employer successes, and after heavy lobbying by disability rights advocates, Congress responded with the new law which substantially broadened the scope of the ADA.

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Mar 17, 2011

On March 1, 2011, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia, the U.S.

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Feb 17, 2011

On January 24, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, expanding upon the Court’s 2006 ruling in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v.

Published by Charles F. Walters on on Dec 13, 2010

The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights implemented revised regulations for the  District’s Family and Medical Leave Act (DCFMLA) effective November 19, 2010.  Fortunately for employers, the final regulations omit many of the more controversial provisions contained in the May 2010 proposed regulations; particularly the proposed extended geographic coverage and proposed employer obligation to notify employees of the impending exhaustion of their DCFMLA leave.