Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On December 11, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2013-74, which provides additional guidance for 401(k), 403(b) and governmental 457(b) plan sponsors on permitting in-plan Roth conversions (called “rollovers”) of pre-tax amounts.

In several recent cases in California, courts have applied Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. v. Superior Court to reverse trial court decisions denying class certification.  Brinker is the ground breaking case in California where the California Supreme Court held that employers are only required to provide the opportunity for employees to take 30 minute meal breaks, but are not required to ensure those breaks are actually taken.  The Brinker court also held that where an employer has a uniformly-applied policy that is unlawful, class certification may be appropriate.  The recent ...

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a significant ruling in the continuing conflict over the ability of employers to require employees to arbitrate employment disputes and to waive the right to class arbitration.  In a long-awaited – and, in many circles, expected – decision, the Court overturned the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that employers violate the National Labor Relations Act by forcing employees to submit employment disputes to individual arbitration.  The Court’s decision may pave the way for employers to enforce class arbitration waivers without fear of NLRB enforcement action….at least not anytime soon.

Employers across the Country are relying on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2541 to fight class certification or to file decertification motions.  Many are finding success, and for good reason.  Dukes is a major obstacle to class certification.  However, in a recent California appeals decision, Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Insurance Company), December 6, 2013, Second District, Div. Eight, 2013 S.O.S. B244043, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion when it decertified a class based on Dukes.  The trial court found that Dukes

Employers' use of criminal background checks in the hiring process is creating growing exposure to liability on several fronts.

Please join us for a complimentary webinar on this topic:

Thursday, January 16, 2014

10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. PT
(1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. ET)

On October 31, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2013-71, which modifies the “use or lose” rule for flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and permits employers to amend their section 125 “cafeteria” plans to allow employees to carry over up to $500 in unused FSA contributions to the next plan year.

The government shutdown may have ended six weeks ago, but its impact may be felt for months to come.  The Office of Management and Budget recently released a report entitled “Impacts and Costs of the October 2013 Federal Government Shutdown,” which details the costs of the government shutdown and the impact it had on government workers, which in turn impacts the private sector workplace as well.

The “ban the box” movement continues to sweep through state legislatures.  These laws, which vary in terms of scope and detail, generally prohibit employers from requesting on applications information about applicants’ criminal histories.  Recent legislation in two states applies “ban the box” prohibitions to private employers in the state.

More than three years after first announcing that it was considering issuing regulations applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to websites, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) appears on the verge of announcing its proposed rules for website accessibility. While the DOJ originally stated that it anticipated issuing its Title II website accessibility rules for websites operated by state and local governments by November 2013, it now expects to issue these rules by the end of the year. These proposed regulations will “expressly address the obligations of public entities to ...

On Wednesday the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving religious objections made by corporations to a provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Affordable Care Act”), which requires employers to provide health insurance for employees that covers contraceptives.  The central issue in both cases is whether a secular for-profit corporation may be exempt from complying with the contraception mandate under the Constitution because of the owner’s religious views.