This post was contributed by Eric N. Athey, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are widely known as the
The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") recently released a revised Form 941, the Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and related instructions to guide eligible employers in claiming the payroll tax exemption offered under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment ("HIRE") Act (H.R. 2847). The HIRE Act offers a tax exemption from having to pay the
On March 18, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment ("HIRE") Act (H.R. 2847). The HIRE Act amends the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") to provide certain tax incentives for employers to hire unemployed workers. Specifically, the HIRE Act creates two new tax benefits for eligible employers: a payroll tax exemption for certain new hires, and a tax credit for retaining the qualified new hires.
First, the HIRE Act provides eligible employers with a payroll tax exemption for qualified employees hired between February 3, 2010, and January 11, 2011. This tax benefit is an exemption from having to pay the employer’s 6.2% share of social security tax on the wages paid to the qualified employee from March 19, 2010, through December 31, 2010. Employers may claim this tax exemption on their quarterly tax returns, starting with the second quarter of 2010.
Second, the HIRE Act also provides eligible employers with a business tax credit for each qualified employee that is retained for at least one year, or 52 consecutive weeks. The employer may claim a credit of up to 6.2% of the wages paid to the retained employee over the one-year period, or a maximum of $1,000 per qualified employee, on its 2011 tax return. Continue Reading HIRE Act Provides Employers with Tax Incentives for Hiring and Retaining Qualified Employees
A governmental employer cannot throw out a employment promotion test because it thinks that the test results have a disparate impact against a minority group unless there is a "strong basis in evidence" to believe it will be liable for discrimination unless it rejects the test results. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s decision
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) announced the third postponement of the implementation of the final rule requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to begin using E-Verify system which is now delayed until Sept. 8, 2009.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (collectively known as the Federal Acquisitions Regulatory Councils) will
The ADA Amendments Act re-wrote the definition of disability so that it will likely include obesity-related health conditions and perhaps obesity itself as a protected disability. Before the ADA Amendments, being overweight and even obese was not generally considered a "disability". For example in EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., a court determined that
The applicability date of the final rule requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to begin using U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) E-Verify system has been pushed back by six weeks to June 30, 2009, with hint that it may be abandoned or revised. The USCIS website contains the following notice:
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council
There is no delay. April 3, 2009 is the effective date for use of the revised I-9 Form according to the USCIS. The following resources are available for compliance with the revised form and more limited scope of acceptable documents:
Frankly, I was expecting a delay in the effective date of the Revised I-9 Form, so I have been procrastinating a reminder post. I am tired of checking the USCIS website for information. However, I am wary since there has been no report on the comments received during the 30-day re-opening of the comment period which ended
The United States Supreme Court upheld a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for the Court to strike down an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement, which was freely negotiated by