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
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Title VII
- Social Media
- Religion Discrimination
- Employer Policies
- Labor Law
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Wage & Hour
- Coronavirus
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- NLRB
- Artificial Intelligence
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Workplace Violence
- OSHA
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Compliance
- FLSA
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Justice
- Worker Classification
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- NLRA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Harassment
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Litigation
- IRS
- 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
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower
- Federal Arbitration Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Transgender Issues
- 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
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- EEOC Takes Aim at Perceived Anti-American Bias
- Ohio “Mini-WARN” Act Now In Effect: Key Compliance Takeaways for Employers
- EEOC's Renewed Focus on Religious Discrimination: What Employers Need to Know
- 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