Blogs
Clock 2 minute read

On March 22, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which is likely to have serious repercussions for companies in the bio/pharma tech space.  In MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC., ET AL. v. SIRACUSANO ET AL., the Court rejected Matrixx argument that reports regarding the adverse effect of Zicam, its leading revenue generating product, were not statistically significant and therefore not material.

Noting that the analysis of materiality under the securities laws in fact specific, the Court appears to have relied heavily on two factors:

1. The methodologies and requirements ...

Blogs
Clock 11 minute read

By: Allen B. Roberts, Stuart M. Gerson and Daniel J. Schuch

In a case packed with allegations of the kind rarely found beyond the script of a soap opera, the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") Administrative Review Board ("ARB") determined that protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") does not require a showing of fraud against shareholders. Rather, per the ARB, it is sufficient that an employee reasonably believes conventional mail or wire fraud has occurred. The holding in Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (pdf) evidences the ARB's adherence to a literal, and clinical, construction of SOX – and serves as a clear indication of the ARB's willingness to reach beyond the underlying objectives envisioned by Congress in the wake of the infamous collapse of Enron and WorldCom. If upheld and followed, Brown effectively expands SOX whistleblower protections well beyond the intended beneficiary of the law – the "innocent investor."

Blogs
Clock 2 minute read

By:  Michael Kun

Employers who do business in California are already well aware of the wage-hour class actions that have besieged employers in virtually every industry.   Class claims for misclassification of employees as exempt employees or independent contractors first began to be filed more than a decade ago, and continue to be filed on a daily basis.  Claims for alleged work off-the-clock and missed meal and rest periods by non-exempt employees generally began later, but continue to be filed at an alarming rate. 

Now we can add to those cases a new wave of California class actions ...

Blogs
Clock less than a minute

On January 14, 2011, EpsteinBeckerGreen helped one of its restaurant clients, the Brasserie Ruhlmann, obtain summary judgment “in its entirety” in a lawsuit brought by former waiters, bussers, and runners (“Plaintiffs”).  Similar to many such wage and hour cases currently being litigated in the hospitality industry, Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the restaurant’s tip pool with assertions that captains and the banquet coordinator performed managerial functions and, thus, were not “tip eligible.”  If Plaintiffs had succeeded, they would have also ...

Blogs
Clock less than a minute

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., __ U.S. __ (March 22, 2011), holds that an employee’s oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) constitutes protected conduct under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. 

EBG partner Frank C. Morris, Jr., discusses in an EBG Act Now Advisory the fact that the Kasten decision is merely the latest in an ever-growing series of cases where the Supreme Court has broadly interpreted protections against retaliation and for whistleblowers.  The EBG Act Now ...

Blogs
Clock 2 minute read

By:  Kara M. Maciel

A Maryland federal court recently ruled in Gionfriddo v. Jason Zink LLC that the owner and operator of two taverns could not qualify as a  “tipped employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law despite that he also worked as a bartender at his establishments.  Thus, while he contributed tips to the tip pool arrangement when he worked as a bartender, he could not also share in the distribution of the tips.  The court stated that allowing an owner to participate in a tip pool would broaden the FLSA’s tip credit provisions to a ...

Blogs
Clock less than a minute

 

By Robert S. Groban Jr

On February 15, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a complaint by foreign H-2B workers that alleged that their employer violated the minimum wage provisiosn of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by refusing to reimburse the workers' transportation, visa and recruitment expenses. See Teoba v. Turgreen Landcare LLC, No. 10-6132 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2011).  In Teoba, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of H-2B workers who were recruited over a three-year period by Trugreen, a landscape ...

Blogs
Clock 3 minute read

By:  Kara M. Maciel and Evan Rosen 

In recent weeks the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) has been very active in soliciting public comments and amicus briefs on a wide range of decisions and proposed regulations that could drastically change the labor relations landscape. One of these topics are the rules surrounding the scope of union solicitation on a non-unionized employer’s private property. 

We have received many inquiries from our clients about the Board's review of whether to change the solicitation rules. In light of the ...

Blogs
Clock less than a minute

 

EBG Partners Peter M. Panken, Frank C. Morris, Jr., Peter A. Steinmeyer, and Michael S. Kun discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in which the Court significantly expanded employee protections against retaliation by employers.  In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 24, 2011), the Court held that protection from retaliation extends not only to those employees who themselves oppose alleged discrimination or file a charge or otherwise participate in a proceeding, but also to the fiancé of an employee who filed a charge of discrimination against ...

Blogs
Clock 10 minute read

By Allen B. Roberts and John Houston Pope

With virtually no fanfare, a major sector of the American workforce – those who handle food – won whistleblower protections under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”), Pub. L. No. 111-353. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) describes FSMA, signed into law on January 4, 2011, as improving food safety by preventing hazards “from farm to table” and making “everyone in the global food chain responsible for safety.”

While much attention and controversy surrounded the whistleblower bounty awards of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) enacted in July 2010, the potentially more significant whistleblower provision of FSMA passed in the final days of the 2010 legislative session in routine and undramatic fashion. Indeed, the most significant whistleblower portions of the bill did not emerge until a version of the bill was reported out of a Senate committee in mid-November. (No written report explained the major changes written into the law.) Because of the sheer size of the workforce that touches food and the comprehensive definition of “protected activity,” however, the relatively unheralded law extends coverage and companion employer obligations in potentially unprecedented measure. The claims that result could dwarf those arising under whistleblower laws receiving far more media and business attention.

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Recent Updates

Related Services

Topics

Archives

Jump to Page

Subscribe

Sign up to receive an email notification when new Workforce Bulletin posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.