Going Through Withdrawal – Strategies for Minimizing Your Multiemployer Pension Withdrawal Liability, Protecting Your Assets and Saving Your Business

Join Conn Maciel Carey Labor & Employment Practice Group partner, Mark Trapp, on November 14, 2018 when he presents an interactive workshop to help unionized employers understand and analyze what is often the most critical challenge facing their business – multiemployer pension withdrawal liability.  Attendees will learn innovative and aggressive techniques and strategies to address this issue and proactively secure the future of their company. Increasing Money Graph

This workshop will also discuss the current legislative environment for multiemployer pension plans and issues, particularly the work of the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans, charged with preparing a report and recommended legislative language by November 30 to “significantly improve the solvency” of multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Workshop attendees will:

  • Gain a broad understanding of the challenges facing employers who participate in a multiemployer pension plan

  • Discover strategies for assessing and minimizing their withdrawal liability risks through collective bargaining and business planning

  • Examine the status and possibility of legislative relief from the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans

Click here to register.

[Webinar] A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws: Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies

On Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 1 pm EDT, join Kara M. Maciel and Andrew J. Sommer of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar:  “A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws:  Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies

Businesses continue to be plagued by litigation under the Americans with Disabilities, Title III (ADA) over alleged access barriers.  Lawsuits against hotels and retailers, among other public accommodations, appear to be on the rise with a disproportionate share in California.

Disability Webinar

This webinar will provide an overview of ADA, Title III standards as they apply to construction existing before the enactment of the ADA in 1992 as well as to subsequent new construction and alterations.  The webinar will also address Continue reading

Lasting Effects of the #MeToo Movement

It has been about a year since the #MeToo movement went viral, spreading greater awareness about sexual misconduct and harassment, and, more generally, the role of women, in the workplace.  So, where are we now, and has anything changed?  Was it just an awareness movement?  Or, have things actually started to shift in the legal landscape with respect to the way employers are required to handle sexual misconduct and harassment?  And what about with the way women are represented at work?  Even if #MeToo may have started out as an awareness movement, states like New York and California are implementing changes in the law that are now imposing, orshutterstock_me too will soon impose, new requirements on employers, in hopes of giving #MeToo a significant, lasting effect.  So, what should employers in New York and California do now?  And, given that these states are often at the forefront of labor and employment issues, how should employers outside New York and California prepare in case new laws are passed in their states?

New York’s New Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws

On April 12, 2018, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the 2019 New York State Budget, updating the state’s sexual harassment laws.  Among other changes, there are two key components under these laws.  First, every employer in New York must establish a sexual harassment prevention policy.  These policies should have already been adopted and provided to all employees by October 9, 2018.  The New York Department of Labor and New York Division of Human Rights have established a model sexual harassment prevention policy for employers to adopt.  But employers are not required to use this model, so long as their policy meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the model and set forth in the laws.  Employers must distribute the policy to all employees in writing or electronically, and must ensure that all future employees receive the policy before they start work.  Additionally, employers are encouraged to post a copy where employees can easily access it.

Continue reading

Novel Legislation: Maryland’s Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018

harassmentWith the rise of the #MeToo movement, there have been a number of responses from both employers and state legislatures to address workplace harassment.  As discussed during the EEOC Special Task Force Meeting on June 11, 2018, several state legislatures are taking proactive steps to combat workplace sexual harassment.  For example, on May 15, 2018, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed and ratified the Maryland Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018 – which passed the Maryland House (46-0) and Senate (136-1) with almost unanimous support.

The Act, which goes into effect on Continue reading

Highlights of the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda – Part 1: Initiatives of the NLRB

Spring 2018 Regulatory AgendaOn Wednesday, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the Trump Administration’s Unified Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda).  This Agenda lays out the short-term and long-term regulatory and, pursuant to the Trump Administration’s focus on rolling back regulation, deregulatory priorities for all the different Federal Government Agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), Department of Labor (“DOL”), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  Specifically, the Agenda identifies and briefly explains the rulemaking activities in which each Agency plans to engage over the remainder of 2018 and into the next year.  Below, we have highlighted the major initiatives the NLRB has taken and intends to undertake as outlined in this Agenda.  We will address highlights from the Agenda for the DOL and EEOC in Part Two of this post.

NLRB’s Intent to Establish Joint-Employer Standard

One of the initiatives that came as a surprise to many when it appeared in the Spring 2018 Agenda is a rulemaking to establish a standard to assess joint-employer status.  This rulemaking has been initiated by the NLRB and is currently on the Long-term Actions list.  Although agencies usually include items on the Long-term Actions list that they do not plan to act on within the next year, the press release issued by the NLRB in conjunction with the Spring 2018 Agenda indicates an intent to move on this rulemaking promptly.  In the press release, Chairman John F. Ring states, “In my view, notice-and-comment rulemaking offers the best vehicle to fully consider all views on what the [joint-employer] standard ought to be.  I am committed to working with my colleagues to issue a proposed rule as soon as possible…” (emphasis added).  The press release also reveals that certain members of the NLRB – Chairman Ring and Members Emanuel and Kaplan – have already begun the internal process required to consider rulemaking on the standard. Continue reading

Seeking to Pave the Way in the #MeToo Era, the California Legislature Veers off Course

By Andrew J. Sommer

shutterstock_me tooThe #MeToo movement, formed in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations against high profile public figures, has dramatically changed the discourse over harassment. Various politicians, celebrities and business leaders have been implicated in varying degrees, from engaging in sexual misconduct to tolerating a workplace with a pervasive culture of harassment and bias.  With this social movement gaining traction, the California legislature has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to change the perceived culture of workplace harassment but also revamp a host of existing general employment laws to add tools to the arsenal for employees and their attorneys.  As an example, the legislature has introduced the following bills since January 2018

SB 820 – Non-Disclosure Clauses in Settlement Agreements

In the #MeToo movement, the use of non-disclosure agreements to keep harassment allegations from coming to light has drawn significant public criticism. The California legislature has recently stepped into the fray, by introducing Senate Bill (SB) 820 to generally ban non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements resolving claims of sexual assault or harassment, sex discrimination, or harassment and retaliation for reporting such claims. Specifically, the bill prohibits settlement agreements from containing any provision preventing the “disclosure of factual information” related to these types of lawsuits, except where the provision was included at the request of the claimant. Continue reading

Taxing Decisions: New Rules on Deductions and Credits in the Employment Context

By: Aaron Gelb

CalculatorAs many individuals turn their attention to preparing and filing their tax returns on or before April 15, there are two notable changes to the tax code of which employers should take note.  These changes, tucked away in the 2017 Tax Act (also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) (the “Act”), have gone largely unnoticed while most Americans have focused on the on-again, off-again government shutdown drama.  The first change involves the deductibility of settlement payments made to resolve sexual harassment/abuse claims, while the second is a tax credit available, in certain circumstances, to employers that offer paid family leave to their employees.

Sexual Harassment and/or Abuse Settlement Payments

Section 13307 of the Act prohibits employers from deducting any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or abuse claims if the settlement or payment is made subject to the sort of nondisclosure provisions commonplace in settlement agreements.  This means that if an employer insists that the complaining employee keep the terms of the agreement confidential, the monies paid in exchange for the release are not deductible.  The same presumably holds true if the employer conditions said payments on the claimant agreeing not to disclose the allegations set forth in the original claim that precipitated the settlement. Continue reading