Corporate Finance Law Blog : Corporate Finance Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm

By Elizabeth J. Deckman, Jeff Belfiglio, Stuart Harris and Holly Wylam Klein

On March 19, 2009, the Department of Labor issued four new model COBRA notices designed to help employers satisfy their new COBRA notice obligations under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Under the Act, certain persons who lost health care coverage as a result of an involuntary termination of employment are entitled to a subsidy of 65 percent of the employee's cost of COBRA coverage.

(For more information regarding the Act and the COBRA subsidy, please refer to our Feb. 24, 2009, advisory bulletin, “New COBRA Rules Require Prompt Action.” In addition, for your convenience, we've included a sound file of a Davis Wright Tremaine teleseminar, “How Will New COBRA Rules Affect You?” held on March 12, 2009.) Continue reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Potential impacts and recommended responses

By Anne E. Denecke, Michael Reiss, Weldon H. Latham, John M. Bryson II and Angela Hart-Edwards

President Obama chose the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“Fair Pay Act”) as the first law he signed after taking the oath of office, noting that its purpose was “to ensure fundamental fairness for American workers.” The Fair Pay Act overturns a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a female employee's Title VII sex discrimination complaint based on unequal pay was barred for failure to file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the employer's discriminatory action that led to the pay differential.

The Fair Pay Act essentially confirmed Ms. Ledbetter's argument to the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, 550 U.S. 618 (2007) and the law in nine of 10 Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as the EEOC's long-standing position, that the 180-day period for filing an EEOC charge (300 days in states with an antidiscrimination agency) begins anew each time discriminatory compensation is paid as a result of earlier discriminatory conduct.

Employers must take note of this development and ensure that their practices and policies promote a workplace free of discrimination, not only in compensation, but all other employee-related areas. This Advisory provides an overview of the Fair Pay Act's potential impact on employers and some steps employers can take to improve fairness and consistency while protecting themselves against older claims.
Continue reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Greg K. Hitchcock and Jenna L. Mooney

Oregon employers should be aware that when they deduct amounts from an employee's wages they have only seven days to pay the withheld amounts to the employee's intended recipient, unless the employee agrees to another deadline. This "seven-day rule," a little-noticed provision passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2007, applies to deductions for things such as charitable contributions, union dues, parking and transit, day care and certain insurance plans. The seven-day rule also applies to required deductions without another specified time for payment such as child support. The penalties are potentially severe for failing to satisfy this new requirement, which first became effective in 2008. Continue reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Weldon H. Latham, John M. Bryson II and Angela Hart-Edwards 

President Obama chose the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“Fair Pay Act”) as the first law he signed after taking the oath of office, noting that its purpose was “to ensure fundamental fairness for American workers.” The Fair Pay Act overturns a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a female employee's Title VII sex discrimination complaint based on unequal pay was barred for failure to file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) within 180 days of the employer's discriminatory action that led to the pay differential. The Fair Pay Act essentially confirmed Ms. Ledbetter's argument to the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, 550 U.S. 618 (2007) and the law in nine of ten Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as the EEOC's long-standing position, that the 180-day period for filing an EEOC charge (300 days in states with an antidiscrimination agency) begins anew each time discriminatory compensation is paid as a result of earlier discriminatory conduct. Continue reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

August 13, 2008

Printer-friendly version

By Jennifer L. Brockett, Stuart W. Miller, John P. LeCrone and Emilio Gonzalez

California's Supreme Court, in the recent case of Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, has affirmed California's long-standing ban on noncompete agreements and explicitly extended it to so-called “nonsolicitation” provisions, as well. The Court ruled that noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses are void in California, unless they fall within a statutory exception, such as agreements involving the sale of a business or shares of stock in a corporation. The Court also found that an employer that requires employees to sign an agreement containing such a clause may commit an unlawful business practice subject to tort damages. Continue reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link