The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued their long-awaited proposed rules in connection with the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care today. Transforming our healthcare system to one that pays for value is one of the Department’s top four priorities, and the Deputy Secretary launched the Regulatory Sprint to remove potential regulatory barriers to care coordination and value-based care.
By Benoît Chartier, from our Insurance Law Practice Group.
October 9, 2019 — As an incentive for municipalities to enhance their firefighting services, the Fire Safety Act grants them an exemption from lawsuits when they have implemented and followed a fire safety cover plan.
However, this exemption is not unconditional: certain principles of liability remain, as seen in the decision of the Superior Court of Québec in Royal & Sun Alliance du Canada, société d’assurances c. Ville de Trois Rivières, 2019 QCCS 3181.
Click here to read more (PDF).
Rules relating to tip credit and pooling have resulted in significant debate among legislators, regulators, and the courts, leading to confusion, further litigation, and, in many cases, substantial liability or settlements involving employers that operate in the hospitality industry. Today, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published proposed rulemaking that aims to bring greater clarity to the morass of tip-related legislation, as well as previous agency rules and interpretations. I describe below some of the notable elements of these proposed rules.
In Adopting “Contract Coverage” Standard, NLRB Gives Employers Greater Flexibility to Act Unilaterally on Subjects Encompassed by Collective Bargaining Agreements
As summer turned to fall, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) issued a steady stream of decisions with significant and favorable implications for employers. In the flurry of recent decisions, the Board addressed misclassification of workers as independent contractors, employers’ rights to control access to private property (Tobin Center for Performing Arts, UPMC, and Kroger Mid-Atlantic), the right to impose class action waivers in the wake of employment lawsuits, withdrawal of union recognition, the appropriate scope of bargaining units, and management’s right to make unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment that are “covered by” a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).
Sports and sports teams have a long history with intellectual property law and, more specifically, trademarks. Sports teams, colleges, and universities have long trademarked their names and logos, and have routinely and aggressively enforced those rights. In 1988 Pat Riley, then the head coach of the National Basketball Association’s Los Angeles Lakers, applied for a trademark on the term “three-peat” for shirts, jackets, and hats (U.S Reg. No. 1,552,980). Subsequently, others have attempted to trademark various terms, such as baseball player Manny Ramierz trademarking the phrase ‘Manny Being Manny’. In 2012, football player Robert Griffin III filed for seven trademarks: RGIII, RG3, Robert Griffin III, Unbelievably Believable, Go Catch Your Dream, Light You Up, Work Hard Stay Humble, No Pressure No Diamonds, and Dream Big Live Bigger.
Can you rescue your raw materials or unfinished products from a company after it goes under insolvency?
The answer is yes, as held by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Chandigarh Bench.
I’m pleased to present the 2019 update to our “Trade Secrets Litigation” Practice Note, published by Thomson Reuters Practical Law. My co-author Zachary Jackson and I discuss litigation for employers whose employees have misappropriated trade secrets.
In a Trending News interview from Employment Law This Week®, our colleague RyAnn McKay Hooper of Epstein Becker Green discusses the Republican-majority NLRB’s recent decisions and how they signal a shift in the Board’s focus:
Expert determination is a private method of dispute resolution whereby disputing parties appoint an expert to determine their dispute. We take a purposeful look at the small print of this resolution method.
Expert determination is a private method of dispute resolution whereby disputing parties appoint an expert to determine their dispute. It is most used in the areas of valuation and assessment. In certain cases, it can have significant advantages over arbitration.
Federal Court’s Approval of Settlement in Litigation Over Expenses Charged to Brokers Offers Guidance on Settlement of Parallel Class Actions
On September 6, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement in Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. The significance of the result is two-fold. First, substantively, it is a reminder to financial services firms of potential liability under California labor law when advisors are required to pay for business expenses. Second, procedurally, the court’s approval of the settlement is edifying on the subject of parallel class actions.
In the Harvey case, plaintiffs challenged Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s (“MSSB”) Alternative Flexible Grid expense program on the grounds that it violated California labor law by failing to reimburse their reasonable and necessary business expenses.