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
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Reasonable Accommodation
- FLSA
- FMLA
- Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Social Media
- Diversity
- Title VII
- Telework
- Coronavirus
- Employer Policies
- Religion Discrimination
- Employment Litigation
- Wage & Hour
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- NLRB
- Paid Leave Laws
- Workplace Violence
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Non-Compete Agreements
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Tax Credit
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- Compliance
- NLRA
- Supreme Court
- Arbitration
- Worker Classification
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Harassment
- Litigation
- IRS
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Securities Law
- Privacy Laws
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- 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
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA
- EEOC Rescinds Anti-Harassment Guidance Addressing Transgender Protections
- The EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Employer DEI Programs in 2026
- The Commute Counts: DOL Confirms FMLA Leave Extends to Travel Time
- Expansion of State Paid Leave Laws in 2026
- Work Opportunity Tax Credit At Risk: Use It Before You Lose It
- IRS Releases Additional Guidance on New Tip and Overtime Tax Deductions for 2025
- EEOC Takes Aim at Perceived Anti-American Bias