On August 10, 2018, the Governor of Massachusetts signed “An Act relative to the judicial enforcement of noncompetition agreements,” otherwise known as the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (“Act”), § 24L of Chapter 149 of the Massachusetts General Laws.[1]The Act limits the ability of Massachusetts employers to enter into non-competition agreements and applies to all non-competition agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018.
This Employment Law This Week Deep Dive episode focuses on preventing harassment in the #MeToo era. The #MeToo movement has raised the stakes for all employers. Attorneys Jennifer Gefsky and Ian Carleton Schaefer of Epstein Becker Green discuss what the #MeToo movement has taught us; the active role being taken by state and local governments to regulate the working environment, including requirements that mandate anti-harassment training for employees; and guidance on workplace harassment that was recently issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Statement 1 of the Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care recognizes that small hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, may be unable to achieve cost savings through efficiencies, such as those that could be achieved by larger hospitals. Statement 1 also notes that, in many cases, a small rural hospital may be the only hospital in the relevant geographic market. As a result, Statement 1 provides an antitrust safety zone for mergers involving small hospitals; the antitrust enforcement agencies will not challenge transactions involving these small hospitals, “absent extraordinary circumstances.”
Washington, DC (August 16, 2018) – Epstein Becker Green (EBG) is pleased to announce that Neil P. Di Spirito, an attorney with more than two decades of experience advising pharmaceutical, medical device, biologic, and life sciences clients on compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, has joined as a Member of the Firm in the Health Care and Life Sciences practice in the District of Columbia and Florida.
New York, NY (August 15, 2018) – The following 38 attorneys from Epstein Becker Green (EBG) were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2019 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Best Lawyers® compiles lists of outstanding attorneys by conducting peer-review surveys in which thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate the professional abilities of their peers within their geographical and legal practice area.
Bloggers naturally desire to write about new developments and new cases. But, because writing on legal topics is often like pulling snap shots out of a film, there is also sometimes a feeling that one is obliged to return to a previously noted case to report back on the rest of the story (as one might say (if named Paul Harvey)). So it is today for this blogger, as he reports on the developments in a case that occurred after the previous blog post freeze frame.
The Ryan Haight Act Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (21 U.S.C. § 802(54)) (the “Ryan Haight Act” or “Act”) expanded the federal Controlled Substances Act to define appropriate internet usage in the dispensing and prescribing of schedule drugs, and in doing so effectively banned the issuance of prescriptions via telemedicine services for any controlled substances unless the ordering physician has conducted at least one in-person evaluation of the patient. The Act includes multiple exceptions that permit prescribing of controlled substances without conducting an in-person evaluation, the most relevant to the practice of telemedicine being the mandate that the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) or other federal agency establish rules for a “Special Registration” to be utilized by health care providers. However, despite the statutory mandate, since the 2008 passing of the Act neither the DEA nor any other federal agency has promulgated any regulation or other guidance regarding the development and implementation of such a Special Registration process.
Since earlier this year, reports have circulated that National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) General Counsel Peter Robb planned to introduce changes in its case handling processes and organizational structure that would move certain authority away from the Regional Directors and transfer substantive decision making authority to Washington. While the General Counsel denied the specifics, he acknowledged that as the Board was faced with a reduced case load and budgetary pressures, some changes would be necessary and appropriate. It now appears safe to say that change is indeed coming to the NLRB and that more is likely.
On July 30, 2018, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking aimed at rolling back electronic reporting requirements that were implemented under a rule issued during the Obama administration (“Electronic Reporting Rule”). The Electronic Reporting Rule required employers with 250 or more employees, as well as employers in high risk industries, to electronically submit OSHA Form 300A (annual summary of work-related injuries and illnesses) by the end of 2017, and OSHA Forms 300 (log of injuries and illnesses) and 301 (injury and illness incident reports) by July 1, 2018.
Featured on Employment Law This Week: OSHA plans to roll back a controversial reporting rule initiated at the end of the Obama administration.