Increasingly companies are using third-party digital hiring platforms to recruit and select job applicants. These products, explicitly or implicitly, promise to reduce or eliminate the bias of hiring managers in making selection decisions. Instead, the platforms grade applicants based on a variety of purportedly objective factors. For example, a platform may scan thousands of resumes and select applicants based on education level, work experience, or interests, or rank applicants based on their performance on an aptitude test – whatever data point(s) the platform has been trained to evaluate based on the job opening.
Monthly Archives: June 2019
The International Lawyers Network announced the release of the latest edition of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: What Employers Need to Know, a compilation of brief descriptions of the rules on sexual harassment at work in some 20 jurisdictions. Theodore Goloff wrote the paper on Quebec legislation.
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Court Holds That All Those New Non-Compete Rules under Massachusetts Act Do Not Supplant Old Public Policies Applicable To Pre-Existing Agreements
When Massachusetts enacted the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (“MNCA”) in mid-2018, many suggested then and thereafter that such statutes reflected an anti-employer tilt in public policy. But we advised at that time that the MNCA in fact appeared to present manageable options for sophisticated employers advised by knowledgeable counsel. A recent federal court decision from the District of Massachusetts in Nuvasive Inc. v. Day and Richard, 19-cv-10800 (D. Mass. May 29, 2019), supports our earlier read, and belies the notion that Massachusetts courts see the Commonwealth’s policy requiring application of its own law to pre-existing non-competes. So despite the fear that the statute would eliminate multi-state employers’ ability to rely on more favorable non-Massachusetts law when enforcing restrictive covenants, the Nuvasive court’s result and analysis gives employers hope that such fears were overblown.
Important Deadlines Fast Approaching For Employers to Comply With the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act
In June 2018, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFML). As previously reported, PFML creates a paid leave system which is funded by payroll contributions from employers and covered individuals and administered by the newly created Department of Family and Medical Leave (Department). Beginning in January 2021, all Massachusetts employees and some independent contractors will be eligible to take up to 26 weeks per year of partially paid leave for qualifying medical or family events. The Department has issued draft regulations for implementing PFML, and final regulations are expected by July 1, 2019.
Dr. Rita Choueiri Director at William Buck and Lawyer Raoul D’Cruz discuss tax and R&D concessions for startups after a recent talk with Stone & Chalk Melbourne.
Sexual harassment at work: what your company needs to know. ILN lawyers from around the world weigh in.
The International Lawyers Network’s Labor & Employment Group announces the second release of its publication, “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: What Employers Need to Know.” This collaborative electronic guide offers a summary of key labor law principles in 21 jurisdictions across the globe, serving as a quick, practical reference for those reviewing their sexual harassment policies and training in these jurisdictions.
Director of Global Relationship Management, and the guide’s facilitator, Lindsay Griffiths, says “We’re pleased to offer the second edition of our paper, which builds on our previous efforts. We have a number of new jurisdictions, and the group continues to work collaboratively to update the paper to be a practical and valuable resource for employers examining their sexual harassment policies and training, to ensure they can avoid or promptly handle any #metoo incidents.”
To view the paper, please click here: http://bit.ly/ILNMeToo
Supreme Court of India Clarifies Retrospective Applicability of Amended Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) was amended last year and two new provisions, section 143A and section 148, were inserted in the NI Act, which were necessitated to deal with the delay tactics of drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings, leading to frustration in enforcement of section 138 of the NI Act. The amendments came into force with effect from September 1, 2018 vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (“NI Amendment Act”).
On February 27, 2019, Tennessee-based holding company Vanguard Healthcare, LLC (“Vanguard”), agreed to pay over $18 million to settle a False Claims Act (“FCA”) action brought by the United States and the state of Tennessee for “grossly substandard nursing home services.” The settlement stems from allegations that five Vanguard-operated facilities failed to do the following: (1) administer medications as prescribed, (2) provide standard infection control resulting in urinary tract and wound infections, (3) attend to the basic nutrition and hygiene requirements of residents, (4) take prophylactic measures to prevent pressure ulcers, and (5) use physical restraints only when necessary. The FCA makes it illegal for anyone to submit claims (or cause claims to be submitted) for reimbursement to Medicare or Medicaid that are known to be false or based on false information. This settlement also resolves allegations that the Director of Operations, CEO, and several Vanguard companies caused false and/or fraudulent claims to be submitted. Both the CEO and Director of Operations agreed to pay $250,000, and Vanguard will enter into a chain-wide corporate integrity agreement. The $18 million settlement is the largest “worthless services” settlement to date in Tennessee.
As Summer Approaches, the SDNY Once Again Provides Hope for Businesses Exhausted by Repeated Website Accessibility Lawsuits
While businesses have long grown weary of the plaintiff bar’s seemingly endless stream of website accessibility lawsuits, it appears that judges in the SDNY may be increasingly feeling the same way. For the second time this spring, following on the back of the decision in Mendez v. Apple, a judge in the SDNY, in the case of Diaz v. The Kroger Co., 18-cv-7953 (KPF),has granted a business’ motion to dismiss a website accessibility lawsuit. While decided on multiple grounds, the Court’s decision is primarily based on mootness, providing businesses who have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) at Levels A and AA, and to also maintain compliance going forward, with a potential blueprint to defeat “secondary strike” lawsuits brought in the SDNY.
Rainmaking Recommendation from Jaimie Field: Getting to Know You: Using Google Alerts to Find/Know Your Clients
In today’s guest post, rainmaking expert and coach, Jaimie Field, talks about using Google alerts to learn more about your clients and prospects.