With the United States in the midst of dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, there has been focused attention on the rollout of vaccines approved for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the actual number of individuals being vaccinated. Presently, 250 million COVID-19 vaccine shots have been administered and individuals 16 years of age and older are eligible to receive the vaccine. Now, in an effort to get more people vaccinated, employers are being encouraged to provide paid time off for employees who have not yet been vaccinated against the virus.
Hitting the Reset Button: NIST Seeks Comments on Version 2.0 of HIPAA Security Rule Compliance Guidance
Cyber threats and cybersecurity controls have evolved significantly over the past two decades since the HIPAA Security Rule were originally promulgated. During this same time, healthcare entities have increasingly become a prime target of hackers seeking to extort payment using ransomware, exfiltrate patient data to commit fraud, or disrupt operations in other nefarious ways. Recognizing these challenges, some security professionals have sought further clarity on the HIPAA Security Rule that they deem to be “long in the tooth”. Yet, regulators have not made any significant modifications – perhaps driven by the original policy considerations of the HIPAA Security Rule that: “the standard should be comprehensive and coordinated to address all aspects of security”; that it be “scalable, so that it can be effectively implemented by covered entities of all types and sizes”; and that it “not be linked to specific technologies, allowing covered entities to make use of future technology advancements.”
By Marcel-Olivier Nadeau, from our Insurance Law Practice Group
Mr. Nadeau was representing Intact assurances and Desjardins assurances and in that case.
May 6, 2021 — In Pelletier c. Gauthier (Decision issued April 13, 2021 by the Honourable Jocelyn Pilote, j.c.s., C.S. – 150-17-004304-207), defendants Gauthier et Simard filed a Wellington application against Intact Compagnie d’assurance and Desjardins Assurances générales as impleaded parties, requesting only the right to select their lawyer.
For more than 80 years, federal law has provided a general right to premium pay for working overtime hours, originally just for covered employees, then later for employees of covered enterprises. The laws of more than 30 states contain a comparable requirement, though in some instances differing in the particulars.
This presumptive right to the overtime premium is, of course, subject to the familiar exemption construct whereby individuals whose employment satisfies one or more of the dozens of exempted categories fall outside the premium pay requirement. Many of the most significant employment law battles over the past three decades have focused on whether certain groups of workers satisfied the criteria for an overtime exemption, resulting in businesses spending billions of dollars on judgments, settlements, and defense costs. Think pharmaceutical sales representatives, insurance claims adjusters, financial advisors, mortgage loan officers, insurance and bank underwriters, automotive service advisors, various types of drivers, and more. Hardly a week goes by without reports of seven-figure verdicts or settlements involving challenges to exempt status.
New Traffic Rules of the “E-Commerce Express Lane”- A Briefing of the Online Transaction Supervision and Administration Measures
In recent years, with the development of e-commerce and online payment, online shopping has become an indispensable part of people’s lives. The pandemic further boosts the development of e-commerce, and the booming of phenomenal business models such as livestreaming marketing gets into full swing. Lagging in legal systems has caused dilemmas in law enforcement, such as: how to determine new types of participants such as online streamers, how to allocate legal responsibilities of online platforms, how to exercise accommodative and prudential regulation, and how to protect consumer rights. Read more…
The Southern District of New York’s latest decision in Rubio v. BSDB Management, reaffirms the viability of New York’s faithless servant doctrine, under which a court may require a disloyal employee to return any compensation received from the employer during the period of disloyalty. However, an employer pursuing such a claim must detail the basis of the claim in order to avoid dismissal. Read this Alert their potential liability for violations. Read this Alert
Washington, D.C.’s recently passed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act, broadly prohibits non-compete agreements and restrictions on moonlighting. The new law banning non-compete agreements is very broad. Employers with employees based in D.C. should become familiar with the Act, given their potential liability for violations. Read this Alert
In the Matter of: Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. [WP(C) No. 279/2021]
Forum: High Court of Tripura
Order Delivered on: April 20, 2021
By Eliab Taïrou, from our Labour and Employment Law Group
April 30, 2021 — “The Port of Montreal’s longshoremen have been without a contract since December 2018.”
Throughout successive labour disputes, including the current one between the Maritime Employers Association and the longshoremen of the Port of Montreal, you have probably already read or heard in the news a statement that unionized employees have been “without a contract” since the expiry of their collective agreement. But what does this wording really mean? What is the legal regime in such a situation?
Podcast: Health Care Employers: Whistleblowing, Retaliation Risks Are On the Rise – Diagnosing Health Care
In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions have enacted protections from COVID-19-related liability claims through legislation and executive orders. These liability shields, however, may give health care businesses a false sense of security and offer little protection when it comes to employment claims.