We have a late, breaking Two for Tuesdays for you tonight, and even better, it’s a special guest post from my dear friend Nancy Myrland! I’ve arrived in Chicago for the final prep and overseeing of our Annual Meeting (which accounts for the delay in getting this published) and Nancy kindly agreed to offer you some words of wisdom for this Tuesday. Without further ado…
Monthly Archives: May 2014
A Mouteira Guerreiro, Rosa Amaral & Associados – Sociedade de Advogados, R.L. foi reconhecida pela ACQ Magazine na edição de 2014 dos Global Awards, nas categorias acima elencadas.
MGRA has been recognized ACQ Magazine in the Global Awards 2014 edition, in the above mentioned categories. More…
We have great pleasure in sending you our latest publication “2013 Annual Overview of Banking and Finance Law” drawn up by our team of specialists.
This edition reports on current changes to the financial legal framework and provides insight into recent case law and judicial issues in the banking and finance sector. More…
CMS Scaled Back Changes to the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug and Medicare Advantage Programs, but Some Important Revisions Remain
On May 19, 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released a final rule (“Final Rule”) completing changes to the Medicare Program’s outpatient prescription drug benefit (“Part D”) program and the Medicare Advantage (“MA”) program.
The Final Rule follows and responds to public and stakeholder comments on the January 6, 2014, proposed rule (“Proposed Rule”), which contained significant implications for a wide variety of health care stakeholders, including managed care organizations, prescription drug plan sponsors, pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), pharmacies, drug manufacturers, and the vendors that provide them with services and products. See the previous Epstein Becker Green Client Alert on the Proposed Rule.
By: Kara M. Maciel
My colleagues have a new post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will help many of our readers at this time of year: “Summer’s Coming! How to Handle Unpaid Internships,” by Jeffrey M. Landes, Susan Gross Sholinsky, and Nancy L. Gunzenhauser.
Following is an excerpt:
A hot topic for every summer – but particularly this summer – is the status of unpaid interns. You are probably aware that several wage and hour lawsuits have been brought regarding the employment status of unpaid interns, particularly in the entertainment and publishing industries. The theory behind these cases is that the interns in question don’t fall within the “trainee” exception to the definition of “employee” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as applicable state laws. If the intern does fall within this exception, he or she is not subject to wage and hour laws (such as minimum wage or overtime) and the unpaid internship is thus permissible.
Go to the gym. Load up a barbell. Pick the bar up off the ground ten times. Then jump up and down off a twenty-four inch box ten times. Follow that with ten pull-ups. Repeat the sequence as many times as you can in sixteen minutes. Congratulations, you’ve just done a CrossFit workout! To some people, it sounds like hell. To Reebok, it’s a way to invigorate a brand.
A threshold tactical decision in virtually every non-compete and trade secret case is where to file the suit. This decision is particularly important when a non-compete dispute has a California angle, because non-compete agreements are generally void as against public policy in California. Not surprisingly, employers seeking to enforce non-compete agreements try to stay away from the Golden State, while those seeking to avoid enforcement find it welcoming.
That scenario was recently faced by a federal judge in Chicago, where a California resident (Jon Thorsell) was sued by his former employer (Brunswick Corporation, which is headquartered in Illinois) for allegedly breaching his fiduciary duty, allegedly breaching his non-compete agreement, and allegedly violating the Illinois Trade Secrets Act.
Earlier this year, my firm co-hosted a seminar with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, on the resolution of art disputes. I shared the platform with Henry Legge QC, a leading art barrister, and Sarah Charles of Christie’s. It was a great success and there was clearly a lot of interest in the mediation of art disputes, both from the professionals and the market players in the audience.
On May 5, 2014, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed a bill increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, in 5 steps by July 1, 2018. This follows recent legislation in suburban Maryland’s Montgomery and Prince George’s counties that will increase county minimum wages to $11.50 in various steps by October 1, 2017. (See our January 20, 2014 blog post.)
Employers in Maryland now face three different local minimum wage requirements, in addition to those imposed by federal law.
Under the new Maryland law, the general state minimum wage, currently the federal minimum of $7.25, will increase to $8.00 on January 1, 2015; to $8.25 on July 1, 2015; to $8.75 on July 1, 2016; to $9.25 on July 1, 2017; and to $10.10 on July 1, 2018. Note that these rates trail the rates recently set in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.
A substantial amount of litigation is being brought against companies, both public and private, because of “glass-ceilings” allegedly found within firms. More recently, the financial services industry has been a target of glass ceiling allegations and a number of other discriminatory employer practices against legally protected groups. Nationally, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has implemented a Strategic Enforcement Plan through 2016 to reduce and deter discriminatory practices in the workplace. The plan specifically identifies the smashing of glass ceilings in the financial industry which will provide a highly public example to financial firms and other industries of a zero tolerance policy. This article addresses the exposure to litigation risk and what precautionary steps should be taken.