Employment law is the alphabet soup of state and federal law: ADEA, ADAAA, EPA, FMLA, REDA, NCEEPA, Title VII, and the list continues. To learn more, sign up for a course that will give a brief overview of protections of various state and federal employment laws including best practices for employers and employees under the law. Please visit the ECU Lifelong Learning Program website if you are 50 years or older to register for this class offered on November 16th.
For questions about employment law and other civil litigation issues, please contact Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.
In May 2016, the EEOC released two final rules mapping out how employers may offer inducements and incentives for participation in wellness programs without being in violation of the Americans’ with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
The final ADA rule provides that wellness programs that are part of a group health plan and that ask questions about employees’ health or include medical examinations may offer incentives up to 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage.
The final GINA rule provides that the value of the maximum incentive attributable to a spouse’s participation may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage, the same incentive for the employee. No incentives are allowed in exchange for the current or past health status information of employees’ children or in exchange for specified genetic information.
For help with employment law questions or other civil litigation issues, call Tracy Stroud, Attorney with Colombo Kitchin Attorneys in Greenville, NC, at 252-321-2020.
In Title VII employment discrimination cases, the statute allows award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in the case. In a case interpreting that provision of the statute, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant does not have to obtain a favorable judgment on the merits in order to be a prevailing party. For more information, see CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, May 19, 2016.
For more information on changes in employment law, contact Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.
Standing to sue in Fair Credit Reporting Act violation must allege concrete injury
Employers rely on consumer reporting agencies to run criminal background checks; therefore, the employer must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and must follow the Act’s notice requirement about adverse employment actions taken related to the criminal background check. There have been many class actions which have arisen out of employers’ failure to comply with the notice requirements. The United States Supreme Court may have provided a little relief in that it stated the injury alleged must be concrete for a plaintiff to have standing under the Act.
In Supreme Court case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court found the Ninth Circuit erred in whether the plaintiff had standing. The Supreme Court held that not only must the injury be particularized but also the injury must be concrete. Bare procedural statutory violations will not automatically confer standing under the statute.
If you have questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues, please call Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.