The fact-pattern is familiar to employers who have been on the receiving end of attorney litigation threats. A plaintiff’s lawyer calls, or writes a letter, outlining a potential claim by a client, makes a demand for damages, then perhaps throws in mention of the harm the company will suffer if the allegations become “public.” Just another run-of-the-mill litigation threat from a plaintiff’s attorney. Nothing to make a “federal case” out of it, right? Nothing criminal, right?

Well, maybe it is criminal. The recent charges filed by the United States Attorneys’ Office in the Southern District of New York against celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti highlight the lines that both management and plaintiff’s attorneys need to be aware of during communications involving threats of litigation.


Continue Reading

As the summer reaches its peak, New York employers may be more concerned with juggling employee vacation schedules than drafting new policies. But with New York’s recent anti-sexual harassment legislation coming into effect this October, and continuing into the spring for New York City, employers need to begin rolling out new policies and ensuring that

The IRS recently released guidance providing that taxpayers may, for 2018, treat $6,900 as the maximum deductible health savings account (“HSA”) contribution for family coverage under a high deductible health plan. This change is relevant to employers who sponsor a high deductible health plan and individuals who have contributed or have had contributions made on

As we communicated in our previous advisory, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued new Disability Claims Procedures rules. The original effective date of these rules was extended with the result that the new rules are now effective April 1, 2018.

The new rules are not limited to disability plans. They also apply

Last week the EEOC released its annual report breaking down charges received during the fiscal year. In fiscal year 2017, the agency received 84,254 charges and took in $398 million between voluntary resolutions and litigation.

What’s striking is the number of retaliation charges – with 41,097 charges it is an overwhelming 48.8% of total charges

At the end of 2017, President Trump signed into law The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) that includes significant changes in the employee benefits area, most of which became effective on January 1, 2018. The following is a brief description of some of the notable changes, and we expect additional guidance on many

Take action now to meet the new policy, training, and certification requirements.

Beginning January 1, 2018, Illinois lobbyists and their employers must comply with new sexual harassment compliance rules. Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law Public Act 100-0554 (the Act) to combat sexual harassment in the state legislature. The Act imposes sweeping new requirements on lobbyists even if they are the victims. Press reports detail a number of allegations involving legislators, including some made by lobbyists and activists. One allegation forced the Senate majority leader to step-down from his post. In addition, hundreds of women signed an open letter to bring attention to this pattern of abuse in the state capitol. It appears that discussion of sexual harassment will continue into 2018.

Before the Act, only the Legislative Inspector General could investigate allegations of legislators’ sexual misconduct. That position, however, has been vacant since 2014. Notably, more than two dozen allegations sat uninvestigated on an empty desk. Now, state law authorizes the Secretary of State Inspector General to investigate allegations and the State Executive Ethics Commission to enforce the rules. The legislature, in policing itself, requires lobbyist employers to follow much the same requirements as state agencies in combatting sexual harassment.

Kelley Drye has followed this issue closely and is advising clients on proactive steps they can take to prevent sexual harassment. Stopping the “Harveys in our midst” before they can harm our colleagues or our businesses is more important than ever before. Relying on a generic HR sexual harassment policy is not enough. Employers—not just their registered lobbyists—face new requirements with only weeks to comply.
Continue Reading

The recent Equifax breach data and public missteps in handling the breach has companies revisiting their cybersecurity measures and refreshing their breach response plans.  Although not every company has consumer data likely to be targeted by hackers, employment files may be compromised, such as when breaches of U.S. government databases exposed the personally identifiable information

Happy Halloween New York City Employers!

Just in time to scare even large employers, beginning October 31, 2017, it will be against the law for employers in New York City to ask about, rely on, or verify a job applicant’s salary history during the hiring process. As discussed in detail in our prior posts, this new legislation also permits disgruntled applicants to pursue claims against an employer for violations of the law either with the New York City Commission on Human Rights or directly in court.

With only a few weeks left before the law goes into effect, employers in New York City should take care in reviewing their hiring policies and practices to ensure compliance with the law.

The New Law

First, this law applies to all employers, regardless of size, in New York City.

The new law prohibits employers from:

(1) “Inquiring about” an applicant’s salary history throughout the entire employment process; and/or

(2) “Relying” on the salary history of a job applicant, when determining an applicant’s salary amount at any stage in the employment process, including when negotiating a contract.

The law defines “salary history” broadly to encompass not just wages but also benefits and any other form of compensation.

It also bans employers from searching publicly available records to obtain an applicant’s salary history.

There are limited exceptions to the ban:

  • First, an employer may consider an employee’s salary history if the applicant voluntarily disclosed his or her salary history “without prompting.
  • Second, an employer may discuss salary, benefits and other compensation expectations with the employee as long as the employer does not inquire about salary history.
  • Third, the definition of “salary history” does not include any “objective measure” of the applicant’s productivity, such as revenue, sales, or other production reports.


Continue Reading