New York City Faces Lawsuit for Trying to Enforce Menu Labeling Law

Although the federal menu labeling law was passed as part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, it has been stopped from going into effect several times. It was originally going to become effective in 2016. When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) postponed menu labeling for a year in May 2017, the new date for it to go into effect was established as May 7, 2018.

Despite the federal delay, reported that the New York City government intended to go ahead and enforce the labeling law anyway, and enforcement would begin on August 21, 2017.

read more

Should You Have an Arbitration Clause in Your Employment Contract?

There is a reason that arbitration has gained a foothold in business disputes over the past 20 years, whether between employees and employers or between businesses.
The Advantages of Arbitration

Arbitration offers business owners advantages as a means of dispute resolution including the following:

Lower costs. Generally, arbitration is less expensive than litigation.

Faster resolutions. Nolo reports that a recent study done by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services that the average time for an arbitrated case to resolve is 475 days from filing. In contrast, the average litigated case takes 18 months to three years.

read more

NYC New Job Salary History Law: Keeping Your Hiring Practices Legal

A New York City job salary history law was recently passed, which goes into effect in October 2017. Business owners should be aware of this fact and ensure they keep their hiring practices in lockstep with the new change. CNN Money  reported that employers no longer are allowed to ask prospective job candidates about their previous salaries. According to Mayor De Blasio, the law hopes to lessen the gender pay gap that exists in salaries. At the signing ceremony, the mayor said, “This is about fixing a broken history. This is about overcoming years and years of discrimination that held people back.” Why Job Salary History Questions Tend to Promote Unequal Pay When a business bases its pay on previous salary history and the history is already unequal pay, it simply perpetuates the inequality. This change speaks to the U.S. Census fact that in 2015, for every dollar men earned, women in comparable positions earned 79.6 cents. What Changes Will Employers Have to Make? They must eliminate any questions on job applications that ask about previous salary. They must train hiring managers to refrain from asking about job salary history and refocus the hiring interview on salary expectations instead. To keep the hiring practice uniform, it’s possible that New York companies with offices in other cities may incorporate the change there as well. New York Is Not Alone in This Change According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over 20 other states are also considering passing similar laws that would prohibit employers from inquiring about an applicant’s pay history. At a federal level, The Paycheck Fairness Act is... read more

New York FIFA — The Freelance Isn’t Free Act

Freelance Workers

Any individual that a business owner hires or retains as an independent contractor to provide services in exchange for compensation is a freelance worker. A few common examples are home contracting and repair, photographers, graphic and web designers and translators. You may want to consult with an employment defense lawyer if you have questions as to whether someone working for your business meets the legal definition of an independent contractor/freelance worker.

read more

Wal-Mart’s Alleged Pregnancy Discrimination Makes the Headlines

  A proposed lawsuit against Wal-Mart is a class action that claims the company has discriminated against pregnant workers by denying requests to restrict heavy lifting, making them climb on ladders and making them do other potentially harmful tasks. Details about the Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit According to Reuters two claimants, Otisha Woolbright and Talisha Borders, filed the lawsuit in a federal court in Illinois. The class would include 20,000 women and before the company’s policy changed, an estimated 50,000 women. The lawsuit is based on the American Disabilities Act (ADA), and the argument is that Wal-Mart did not extend the same accommodations to pregnant women as it did to other disabled workers. In 2014, Wal-Mart changed its company policy and began treating pregnancy as a disability. A Wal-Mart spokesman stated that Wal-Mart has always abided by federal law and addressed pregnancy as a protected class. In a U.S. Supreme Court 2015 decision that involved the United Parcel Service, the court ruled that employers must treat pregnant women the same as other workers with disabilities or medical conditions. The claimants’ lawyers’ argue that the Wal-Mart policy did not adequately address the issue. Case Details about the Claimants Otisha Woolbright claimed when she worked in a Florida Wal-Mart, her manager told her that pregnancy was not an excuse to get out of doing heavy lifting. She claims that after she injured herself living trays that weighed as much as 50 pounds and after she asked further about the company’s pregnancy policies, the store fired her. Tallish Borders worked at an Illinois Wal-Mart. She claims she was reprimanded for having... read more