In case you haven’t noticed, things have changed a lot in the advertising and marketing industry. With bigger bandwidth and faster, smaller, cheaper digital devices, the world is staggeringly more connected. With home-grown, artisanal wine, cheese, whiskey . . . pants . . . the world is a lot more “local” as well. And, of course, all of the choices you make – whether it’s the restaurant where you just ate, the starlet you just Googled or the selfie you just posted to Instagram – are obsessively observed, analyzed, and sold to by advertisers and marketers.
State of the Creative Series: Interview with Chief Creative Officer at Ogilvy & Mather North America
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., — S. Ct. —- (2014), on July 1, 2014. While the Court generally addresses the questions presented in the writ of certiorari if it decides to hear the case, the Court added a question of its own for the parties to argue and brief in its grant:
Whether, in resolving a claim of unlawful tax discrimination under 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4), a court should consider other aspects of the State’s tax scheme rather than focusing solely on the challenged tax provision.
The generally accepted wisdom is to move expeditiously to investigate and return federal health care program overpayments once you become aware of them. Now we know the potential downside of failing to do so even when all overpayments are eventually returned. Late last month the United States Attorney’s Office filed a false claims act complaint […]
The post Delay in Return of Overpayments Leads to False Claims Act Suit appeared first on OMW Health Law.
For more information please visit www.omwhealthlaw.com or click on the headline above.
By: Adam C. Solander
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sent shockwaves through the country when they issued conflicting opinions on a key aspect of the ACA. The cases are Halbig v. Burwell, D.C. Cir., No. 14-508 and King v. Burwell, 4th Cir., No. 14-1158. The question at issue in both cases was whether the IRS has the authority to administer subsidies in federally facilitated exchanges when the statute itself specifically authorizes subsides only in state exchanges.
This new Act prohibits an employer or employment agency from inquiring about, considering, or requiring disclosure of the criminal record or criminal history of an applicant until the applicant has been determined qualified for the position and notified that he or she has been selected for an interview or, if there is not an interview, until after a conditional offer of employment is made.
An “applicant” is any person pursuing employment with an employer or through an employment agency. More…
Ingenious litigators encourage the Courts to expand the boundaries of the standard Replacement Cost Endorsement. The Quebec Superior Court pulls on the reins in Placements Sergakis Ltée c. Compagnie d’assurance America Home.
Mr. Villaire concentrates his practice in employment law and litigation. He represents public and private employers in individual and class/collective employment actions, including cases involving the FMLA, the ADA, the ADEA, Title VII, the FLSA, the EEOC, employment agreements and collective bargaining agreements. He also drafts and assists employers enforcing severance agreements, covenants not to compete and confidentiality/trade secret agreements. More…
In Eckford v. Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the “Court”) was faced with an appeal of a wills variation action. At trial, the application to vary the Will was denied. On appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial decision, thus refusing to vary the Will.
The common law spouse (“Ms. Eckford”) of the will-maker (“Mr. Vanderwood”) sought to vary the Will pursuant to section 2 of the Wills Variation Act (“WVA”, now repealed). This section has remained unchanged in the new Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”); the relevant provision of WESA is section 60. Ms. Eckford and Mr. Vanderwood had been living in a marriage-like relationship for approximately four years before Mr. Vanderwood died unexpectedly in a motor vehicle accident.
In case you were hoping that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Noel Canning would finally put to bed any questions regarding President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB, or that the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the Board’s decision in D.R. Horton might alter the NLRB’s position on the right of employers to require employees to abide by mandatory arbitration agreements , think again.
California Employers Must Revisit Exempt Status of Commissioned Employees In Light of Supreme Court Ruling
By: Amy B. Messigian
In a major blow to California employers who utilize a monthly commission scheme but pay biweekly or semimonthly salary to their commission sales employees, the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this week in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. that a commission payment may be applied only to the pay period in which it is paid for the purposes of determining whether an employee is exempt from overtime. Employers may not divide the commission payment across multiple pay periods in order to satisfy the minimum compensation threshold for meeting the exemption in any earlier pay period. California employers who classify their commission sales employees as exempt should immediately take action to ensure compliance with the law.