Tag Archives: EBG

California Supreme Court Holds That Labor Code Section 233 Is Not Applicable To Sick Leave Policies That Provide For Unlimited Number Of Days Off

While employers are not required to provide paid sick leave to their California employees, those that do provide such a benefit are required to abide by the provisions of Labor Code sections 233 and 234. Labor Code section 233 mandates that employers who provide a paid sick leave benefit must allow employees to use one-half of their annual accrued paid sick leave to care for an ill family member (parent, child, spouse or registered domestic partner). This provision of the Labor Code is commonly called “kin care” leave. In addition, Labor Code section 234 prohibits employers from disciplining or terminating employees because they use “kin care” leave.

Read full article

AHRQ Announces a Request for Applications for Partnerships to Participate in ACTION II

by Lynn Shapiro SnyderLee H. Rosebush and Daniel G. Gottlieb

February 2010


On January 20, 2010, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (“AHRQ“) announced its Request for Proposal (“RFP“) No. AHRQ-10-10005 entitled Accelerating Change and Transformation of Organizations and Networks (“ACTION II“).[i] Letters of Intent are due March 1, 2010. Applications must be received by noon (ET) on March 23, 2010. AHRQ anticipates awarding 12 to 15 “cost reimbursement, multiple-award, task order-type contract[s] . . . for a period of five years, [t]hree years with one two-year option.”[ii]

Read full article

UPDATE – COBRA Subsidy: DOL Issues Updated Model COBRA Notices and Other Guidance

As we advised you in our Client Alert that was issued on December 24, 2009 (“UPDATE: Cobra Subsidy: What it Means for Employers Now“), President Obama signed into law the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 (the “Act”), which, among other things, extended and expanded certain provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) pertaining to premium assistance for benefits under the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued the following updated information, of which we wanted to make you aware:

Read full article

President Obama Backs Department of Labor Misclassification Fight

by Evan J. Spelfogel

February 2010


On February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama released his federal budget for the coming fiscal year, including $117 billion for the United States Department of Labor, of which $25 million was set aside expressly to help the DOL combat employee misclassification. This includes, specifically, identifying and litigating against employers that categorize workers as independent contractors when, in fact, they are employees, and that classify as exempt from overtime those employees who do not meet the requirements of the White Collar Exemptions under Part 541 of the Wage and Hour Regulations.

Read full article

New York Appellate Division Revisits Post-Termination Payment Of Commissions

by Dean L. SilverbergJeffrey M. Landes and Anna A. Cohen

February 2010


The New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department’s recent decision in Arbeeny v. Kennedy Executive Search, Inc., — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2010 WL 114948 (1st Dept. Jan. 14, 2010), serves as a valuable lesson to employers with commissioned employees. When drafting written commission agreements, as required by N.Y. Labor Law § 191(c), employers must ensure that they clearly define when a commission is considered “earned.” In Arbeeny, the Appellate Division reinforced the long-standing policy that once a commission is earned, it cannot be forfeited, even if the employee who earned the commission is no longer employed when the commission is payable and the commission agreement provides that commissions are only paid if the employee is still employed when the commissions are due to be paid.

In Arbeeny, the plaintiff was employed by Kennedy Executive Search (“KES”), an executive recruitment firm, as a Senior Executive Search Consultant. Plaintiff’s commission agreement provided that he was eligible “to earn commission compensation in respect of placements arranged by Employee on behalf of KES.” (Emphasis added.) According to the wording of arrangement, the commission was earned at the time it was arranged. Payment of the commissions was to be made in the calendar month following the month in which KES received payment from the client, provided KES recovered certain costs. The commission agreement also provided, “[n]o commission shall be due” in the event plaintiff “is not in the employ of KES at the date the commission payment would otherwise be made.”

KES terminated plaintiff’s employment in March 28, 2007. KES received payment from a client in March for a placement that plaintiff had arranged; however, pursuant to plaintiff’s commission agreement, plaintiff’s commission would have been payable in April, after plaintiff’s termination date. As plaintiff was no longer employed by KES when the commission was due, KES attempted to avoid a dispute with plaintiff by paying him a portion of the commission, but did not pay plaintiff the entire amount due. The court noted that after plaintiff’s termination, KES received other fees from placements also arranged by plaintiff; however, KES did not pay any further commissions to plaintiff.

Although the lower court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with respect to his claim for unpaid commissions, noting that “the employment agreement expressly deprives plaintiff of post-termination commissions,” and there was “no allegation that [KES] failed to pay to [plaintiff] commissions for placements he finalized and for which fees were received prior to his termination,” the Appellate Division reversed this decision and found that plaintiff “has sufficiently stated a breach of contract claim for unpaid earned commissions that he ‘arranged’ prior to his termination.”

While Arbeeny does not prohibit employers from foreclosing the possibility of an employee earning a post-termination commission, to do so, employers should explicitly state that commissions only become earned by the employee if (i) the entire transaction is completed during the employee’s employment, and (ii) the employee remains employed by the company on the date the commissions are due to be paid. To ensure that existing commission agreements are enforceable in the manner intended by the employer, we recommend that employers consult with their Employment Law attorneys to review all commission agreements.

For more information about this Client Alert, please contact:

Dean L. Silverberg
New York
(212) 351-4642
Dsilverberg@ebglaw.com
Jeffrey M. Landes
New York
(212) 351-4601
Jlandes@ebglaw.com
Anna A. Cohen
New York
(212) 351-4922
Acohen@ebglaw.com


Read full article

How Can You Telemarket? The OIG Adds a New Twist to DME Suppliers’ Telemarketing Prohibition

by Jana Kolarik Anderson and George B. Breen

February 2010


On January 13, 2010, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) revised and reissued its 2003 Special Fraud Alert regarding prohibited telemarketing conduct by durable medical equipment (“DME”) suppliers. There is a new twist.

Both the previous and new OIG Special Fraud Alert explains that DME suppliers are statutorily prohibited from making unsolicited telephone calls to Medicare beneficiaries regarding the furnishing of a Medicare covered item, except in certain limited circumstances.[1] The OIG explained that the statute also prohibits payment to a supplier who “knowingly” submits a claim generated pursuant to a prohibited telephone solicitation and that such claims are false. Consequently, violators are potentially subject to criminal, civil and administrative penalties, including exclusion from the Federal health care programs.

Read full article

Clinical Research Regulatory Update: FDA Proposes Updates To Informed Consent Regulations, Issues Guidance On IRB Continuing Review

by Amy DowLeah Kendall and Lee Rosebush

February 2010


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) continues to focus on clinical research activities. In this regard, FDA recently has taken two additional actions to regulate the conduct of clinical trials: (1) publishing a proposed rule updating informed consent regulations; and (2) issuing a draft guidance addressing Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) continuing review requirements. This Client Alert provides a high level summary of these recent FDA regulatory developments in the clinical research area. 

Read full article

NY Governor Paterson Introduces Bill Related To Interactions Between ‘Pharmaceutical Companies’ And Health Care Professionals

by Sarah Giesting and Wendy Goldstein

January 2010


On January 19, 2010, New York Governor David Paterson introduced Senate Bill 6608[i]as part of the 2010-11 New York State Executive Budget. Included in Senate Bill 6608 is a provision to add Section 279, “Interactions Between Pharmaceutical Companies and Health Care Professionals,” to the Public Health Law (“Section 279“). Similar bills are pending in the New York Senate and General Assembly.[ii]

If enacted, Section 279, like other current state marketing laws[iii] and industry codes,[iv]provides a code of conduct applicable to “all companies that sell or market prescription drugs, biologics or medical devices in the state” (“Pharmaceutical Company“).[v]Notably, Section 279 would be the first state law also to provide a code of conduct applicable to health care professionals (“HCP“) practicing in the state to whom such drugs, biologics or medical devices are sold or marketed.

Read full article

New Jersey Enacts Legislation Providing Job Protections To Volunteer Emergency Responders

January 2010


On January 14, 2010, acting Governor Steven M. Sweeney signed into law the New Jersey Emergency Responders Employment Protection Act. The Act prohibits employers from terminating, dismissing or suspending an employee who fails to report for work because he or she is serving as a “volunteer emergency responder” who is either: (1) actively engaged in responding to an emergency alarm; or (2) volunteering as an emergency responder during a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor of the State of New Jersey. The Act will take effect on April 1, 2010.

Read full article

Ninth Circuit: Managers Can Be Liable For Unpaid Wages Upon Bankruptcy

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a corporation’s managers can be held personally liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for wages that the corporation failed to pay to employees prior to the employer’s filing for bankruptcy. This opinion serves as a cautionary reminder of the risks managers potentially face when a corporation files for bankruptcy and has failed to pay its employees for all wages earned prior to the filing.

In Boucher v. Shaw, —- F. 3d —-, 2009 WL 2217517 (9th Cir. 2009), former employees of the Castaways Hotel, Casino and Bowling Center sued three senior managers for unpaid wages under Nevada state law as well as federal law. The managers moved to dismiss the claims based on, among other grounds, the fact that the hotel had filed for bankruptcy protection. The Ninth Circuit asked the Nevada Supreme Court to address the issue of whether, under state law, the managers could be personally liable as “employers” for the unpaid wages. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that individual managers are not “employers” under state law. However, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the managers on the federal FLSA claims and allowed the employees’ claims to proceed.

Read full article