July 2013

Recently, the practice of paying employees via payroll debit cards came under fire when an employee filed a class action lawsuit against her employer, a McDonalds’ franchisee, alleging that payment of wages via a Chase Payroll Card violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (“PWPCL”). The employee claimed that the card’s fees cut into her wages, potentially bringing her pay below minimum wage, and that she and other class members were not being “paid in lawful money” as required by the PWPCL. The case currently is pending in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

As demonstrated by the lawsuit recently filed in Luzerne County, it remains unclear whether the use of such cards complies with Pennsylvania law.
Continue Reading Taking the Check Out of Paycheck: The Legality of Payroll Debit Cards

A recent decision by a Pennsylvania district court lends support for a growing trend of filing claims under the Federal False Claims Act based on allegations that contractors on federally funded construction projects submitted “false claims” to the U.S. government due to prevailing wage violations. In United States ex rel. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 98 v. The Farfield Co., the electrical workers union filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the contractor had violated the False Claims Act by submitting false certified payrolls that misclassified certain workers on public works projects in the Philadelphia area. Although this type of complaint would normally fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor, the judge nonetheless allowed the union’s case to proceed in court on a False Claims Act theory. With judicial recognition of this type of legal claim, not only does the DOL have the ability to investigate contractors for prevailing wage violations under the Davis-Bacon Act, but private citizens can also attack alleged violations under the False Claims Act.
Continue Reading Contractors Beware: Raising the Stakes in Davis-Bacon Compliance

In the last several years, there has been an explosion in the number of workers who use their own personal mobile devices to perform work functions (commonly referred to as “Bring Your Own Device” or “BYOD”). In fact, according to a study conducted last year by tech giant Cisco, approximately 90% of all workers say they use their own personal smartphones, tablets or laptops in some work-related capacity, whether the practice is officially endorsed by their employers or not.

Whether or not you believe that the benefits outweigh the risks, it does not appear BYOD is going anywhere in the near future. Accordingly, employers should adopt comprehensive BYOD plans to mitigate potential security risks and legal liability that naturally comes along with employees utilizing personal mobile devices to perform work tasks. At a minimum, every BYOD plan should address three core components.
Continue Reading Security is Key to “BYOD” Policies

The Supreme Court of the United States continued its hot streak in the arbitration and class action waiver arena with two recent decisions. These decisions are important for employers because they may offer employers a way control expenses related to dispute resolution with employees. Because those expenses can be so high, many employers are considering implementing employment arbitration agreements, consistent with the direction provided by the Court.
Continue Reading Be Clear: Include Class Arbitration Waivers in Arbitration Clauses

As we discussed with attendees at our most recent health care reform compliance seminar in June, we wanted to make the presentation available to the readers of our blog. You can access the PowerPoint, “Countdown to 2014: PPACA Compliance Priorities for Employers,” by clicking through to this blog post.
Continue Reading PPACA Presentation – Countdown to 2014: PPACA Compliance Opportunities for Employers

Many employers received a welcome, though temporary, reprieve yesterday, when the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced a one-year delay in the effective date of one of the key requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the employer “shared responsibility” requirements (a.k.a. “pay or play”).
Continue Reading PPACA Update: Employer Shared Responsibility Mandate Delayed Until 2015

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined “marriage” for purposes of over 1,100 federal laws as a legal union between a man and a woman. With the Court’s decision, same-sex couples that are legally married under state law are now entitled to the same treatment under federal law as opposite-sex married couples. Chief among the benefits now available to same-sex married couples are equal treatment under the country’s immigration and tax laws and equal rights to participate in its federal health and welfare programs. The Court’s decision striking down DOMA also will have a significant impact on the rights of same-sex married couples under various federal laws relating to employment.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Employers Left Wondering How They Are Affected by the Supreme Court’s Decision on DOMA