As businesses begin the process of re-opening, many are finding that due to changed conditions, they are overstaffed. One possible solution to this problem is a reduction in force (RIF). In planning a RIF, there are a great many factors for employers to consider in the current environment, including the points listed below.
Today, the DOL announced publication of a final rule that expands the ability of retirement plans to deliver participant disclosures online or via email by establishing a new, voluntary safe harbor that allows the use of electronic media as a default for participant disclosures. The final rule is in response to the previously reported October, 2019 proposed rule which allowed plan administrators to notify retirement plan participants that required disclosures, such as SPDs, will be posted on a website. Here are some key points of the final rule:
As employers bring employees back into the workplace, many are considering various forms of testing as a means to promote employee safety. While some forms of testing are fairly straightforward, such as taking employees’ temperatures, laboratory testing for COVID-19 is not as simple.
In Notice 2020-29 released on May 12, 2020, the IRS provides expanded options for participants with respect to 2020 mid-year election changes and also provides increased flexibility to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020. Although the temporary relief under Notice 2020-29 was issued in response to the COVID-19 health emergency, the relief is not limited to individuals affected by the pandemic. Specifically:
On May 4, 2020, the IRS issued Q&As on the coronavirus-related distribution and loan provisions added by Section 2022 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). Section 2022 of the CARES Act (discussed in the March Monthly Minute) temporarily:
As Ohio businesses prepare to re-open, a question that has frequently come up is what to do about employees who refuse to return to work. We are referring to employees who are not sick or under any quarantine orders but do not want to return to work. Their reluctance is usually based on (1) fear of being exposed to COVID-19, (2) a lack of childcare because schools and daycares are closed or social distancing with nannies or other family members, or (3) making more money by staying home and collecting unemployment than they would by returning to work.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- NLRB
- Artificial Intelligence
- Title VII
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Worker Classification
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- Compliance
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Harassment
- National Labor Relations Board
- Supreme Court
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Overtime Pay
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA