LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE:
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
March 8, 2011
Eric N. Athey
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
Phone: 717.581.3708
eathey@mwn.com
www.PALaborAndEmploymentBlog.com
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS






Increased Enforcement Activities
from Federal Agencies
Healthcare Reform in "Small Bites"
Upward Trend in EEO Litigation
Continues
Non-Compete Litigation
Independent Contractor Issues
Social Medial in the Workplace
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
2
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS


Increased Enforcement Activities
from Federal Agencies
•
DOL hires 250 Wage & Hour Investigators
(33% increase)
•
OSHA hires 130 new Inspectors
•
EEOC budget seeks 224 new staff
•
OFCCP budget proposes 213 new hires
Grade
B+
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
3
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS


Healthcare Reform in "Small Bites"
•
Landmark Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act passed on March 23,
2010
•
100s of pages of law and regulations –
anything but small!
Grade:
A+ on topic
F on "small bites"!
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
4
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS


Upward Trend in EEO Litigation
Continues
•
Yes, EEOC charges jumped from 93,277
in 2009 to 99,922 in 2010 (record high)
•
No, number of cases filed in court by
EEOC dropped from 314 in 2009 to 271 in
2010 (lowest since 1996)
Grade:
B
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
5
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS

Increase in Non-Compete Litigation
•

NCA litigation remains steady – but no
noticeable surge – YET
Grade:
C
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
6
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS


Independent Contractor Issues
•
PA passes law addressing employee
misclassification issues in construction
industry
•
Feds step up enforcement of
misclassification issues
Grade:
A
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
7
LAST YEAR'S PREDICTIONS


Social Media Issues in the Workplace
•
NLRB complaint on Facebook posting
•
U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Quon
case
•
New Jersey Supreme Court Decision in
Steingart case
•
Delta Airlines "Queen of the Sky"
Discrimination case
Grade:
A
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
8
HEALTHCARE REFORM

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Passed 3/23/10
Some Near-Term Highlights:

•
•
•
•
•
•
Unpaid breaks for nursing mothers (2010)
Dependent care extended to age 26 (2010-11)
Pre-existing condition exclusions phased out (201014)
Lifetime & Annual Maximum Benefit Limits phased
out (2010-14)
FSA/HRA/HSAs: OTC reimbursements nixed (2011)
Extension of nondiscrimination rules to fully insured
plans (unknown)
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
9
HEALTHCARE REFORM

PPACA Long-Term Requirements (2014)
•
•
•
•
•

Free Rider Penalty: Up to $2085 annual penalty
for families who don't have coverage
No Coverage Penalty for Employers: $2000/yr per
employee
Unaffordable Coverage Penalty for Employers:
$3000 per subsidized employee
Free Choice Vouchers
Cadillac Tax (2018)
Issue: How much of PPACA will
survive the 2012 elections?
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
10
RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS

Thompson v. North American
Stainless, LP; Decided 1/24/11
Facts:

•
Thompson is fired 3 weeks after his coworker/fiancée filed a sex discrimination
claim against their employer. Thompson
files his own claim arguing that his
termination was in retaliation for his
fiancée's claim.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
11
THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN
STAINLESS, LP

Issue:
•
Does an employee have standing to claim
retaliation if he did not himself engage in
any activity protected by the law?
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
12
THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN
STAINLESS, LP

Holding:
•
Title VII protects those who fall within the
"zone of interests" sought to be protected
by the Act. "Firing a close family member
will almost always meet…the standard,
and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere
acquaintance will almost never do so, but
beyond that we are reluctant to
generalize."
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
13
THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN
STAINLESS, LP

Best Practice:
•
Prior to termination – consider not only
whether an employee recently engaged in
protected activity, but also whether his/her
family members or significant others (who
are co-workers) have done so.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
14
RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS

City of Ontario v. Quon; Decided 6/17/10

Facts:
•
City had Internet/E-Mail Policy limiting use of
computers, related equipment, e-mail,
programs, etc. to city-related business only.
Policy specifically reserved City's right to
monitor all activities and stated users should
have no expectation of privacy or
confidentiality. Quon signed employee
acknowledgment.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
15
CITY OF ONTARIO V. QUON

Facts:
•
But, lieutenant told officers that it was not his
intent to audit the content of text messages,
and that if they went over 25,000 characters
per month, the officer would have to pay the
overage charges. Quon went over several
times and paid the overages. The Chief of
Police then decided to audit those who
repeatedly had overages. Audit disclosed that
Quon had been "sexting" to both his wife and
mistress.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
16
CITY OF ONTARIO V. QUON

Issue:
•
Does police officer have reasonable
expectation of privacy in text messages
transmitted on his city-issued pager, when
policy department has an official noprivacy policy but a non-policymaking
lieutenant announced an informal policy of
allowing some personal use of pagers?
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
17
CITY OF ONTARIO V. QUON

Holding:
•
In order to be reasonable, a public
employer's work-related search must be
justified and the search must be related to
the justification and not excessively
intrusive. In this case, the search was
justified for the Chief to determine whether
established text message limits were too
high or low – and the scope was
appropriately limited.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
18
CITY OF ONTARIO V. QUON
Even though this is a public sector case, and the
Fourth Amendment does not apply to private
sector employers, there are implications for
private sector employers.

Interested parties filing briefs on behalf of Quon
include the AFL-CIO and the ACLU.

Do you have written policies delineating your
employees' expectations of privacy in communications
such as e-mail, pagers, iPhones, and other mobile
tools that are used both inside and outside the
workplace?

Even if you have such a policy, is it being clearly and
consistently communicated to employees by your
supervisors?
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
19
IN NEIGHBORING STATES . . .

Steingart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc.
Facts:

•
Employee used Company-issued laptop to
exchange e-mail through her personal
password-protected, web-based e-mail
account. After she resigned and returned
the laptop, Company hired experts to
create forensic image of laptop's hard
drive.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
20
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.

Facts:
•
•
Company reviewed seven e-mails between
employee and her attorney which referenced
"attorney-client communication" and
"privileged and confidential."
Company's Electronic Communications Policy
(ECP) reserved Company's right to review and
access all matters on Company's media
systems, and stated e-mail communications
are not to be considered personal or private
(but also stated "occasional personal use is
permitted").
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
21
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.

Facts:
•
•
Company reviewed seven e-mails between
employee and her attorney which referenced
"attorney-client communication" and
"privileged and confidential."
Company's Electronic Communications Policy
(ECP) reserved Company's right to review and
access all matters on Company's media
systems, and stated e-mail communications
are not to be considered personal or private
(but also stated "occasional personal use is
permitted").
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
22
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.

Issue:
•
Did Company have right to retrieve e-mail
from Company-issued laptop after
employee resigned, where e-mail was
between employee and her attorney
discussing her discrimination claims
against the Company?
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
23
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.

Holding:
•
New Jersey Supreme Court held that
employee had a reasonable expectation of
privacy, particularly where e-mail
communications referenced "attorneyclient privilege."
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
24
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.
 Court unanimously holds for
employee, focusing on the adequacy
of the notice provided by the ECP as
well as the attorney-client privilege.
 ECP did not give employees express
notice that messages sent or received
on a personal, web-based e-mail
account were subject to monitoring.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
25
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.

ECP did not warn employees that the
content of such e-mails was stored on a
hard drive and could be forensically
retrieved and read by the Company.
 "Occasional personal use is permitted!"
 Even if ECP had not been "ambiguous,"
the attorney-client privilege is "historically
cloaked in privacy."
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
26
STEINGART V. LOVING CARE
AGENCY, INC.

Even if ECP had banned all personal
computer use and provided clear notice
that Company could retrieve and read emails on a personal, password-protected email account, Court says it would still not
enforce ECP where it conflicted with
attorney-client privileged communications!
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
27
NLRB UPDATE

Employee Termination for Facebook
Post Triggers NLRB Complaint
Facts:

•
Unionized employee posts negative
comments mocking her supervisor on her
Facebook page. Other employees
comment on the post – triggering further
negative posts from the
employee. Employee is terminated for
violation of the employer's social media
policy.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
28
NLRB UPDATE

Issue:
•

Does termination violate National Labor
Relations Act which protects the right of
employees to concertedly discuss wages,
benefits and other working conditions.
Outcome:
•
Based on an initial investigation, the NLRB
issued a complaint which was
subsequently settled on February 7, 2011
before the matter proceeded to a hearing.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
29
THE REGULATORY AGENDA

U.S. DOL Spring Regulatory Agenda:
New Burdens for Employers
•
•
•
"Plan, Prevent, Protect" Strategy.
Onus on employers to demonstrate
compliance with wage and hour, safety,
federal contract compliance, and other laws
overseen by DOL.
Employers will have to prepare, implement,
and share with employees comprehensive
compliance programs (certify their own
compliance).
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
30
THE REGULATORY AGENDA
DOL PLAN, PREVENT, PROTECT
 "Plan" for identifying and remedying
potential violations, e.g., search
workplace for safety hazards that
might injure employees.
 "Prevent" legal violations by
implementing the plan.
 "Protect" employees from violations
of their workplace rights.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
31
THE REGULATORY AGENDA
DOL PLAN, PREVENT, PROTECT

Example: If employer wants to exclude
individuals from overtime compensation
under FLSA, employer must do a
classification analysis, disclose that
analysis to employees, and retain the
analysis for DOL enforcement personnel.
• Suppose employee does not agree with
analysis? Litigation? Union organizing?
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
32
THE REGULATORY AGENDA
EEOC ATTACKS INFLEXIBLE LEAVE POLICIES

Provisions Under Attack:
•
Automatic termination if employee cannot
return after specified time
•
Offering light duty work only to employees
injured on the job
•
Refusing job transfer when an employee is
unable to perform regular job
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
33
THE REGULATORY AGENDA
EEOC ATTACKS INFLEXIBLE LEAVE POLICIES


Issue: To what extent does ADA duty
of reasonable accommodation
require modification of leave policies
and existing jobs?
Reference:
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/acc
ommodation.html
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
34
THE REGULATORY AGENDA
EEOC ATTACKS INFLEXIBLE LEAVE POLICIES

Recent EEOC Settlements on these
issues:
•
Sears, Roebuck $6.2M in Sept. 2009
•
Jewel/Osco $3.2M in Dec. 2010
•
JP Morgan $2.2M Nov. 2006
•
Cases pending vs. UPS, United Airlines
and Denny's
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
35
ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 AND
EEOC'S PROPOSED RULEMAKING




Final regulations awaiting approval by OMB
Congress overruled Supreme Court cases which
had narrowed the definition of "disability."
Amendments broaden definition of "disability."
Mitigating measures (other than eyeglasses or
contact lenses) shall not be considered in
assessing whether an individual has a disability.
• Such measures include medication, medical
equipment and devices, prosthetics, hearing aids,
mobility devices, etc.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
36
ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 AND
EEOC'S PROPOSED RULEMAKING
 EEOC has proposed the following as "per se"
disabilities: Deafness, blindness, intellectual
disability (formerly known as mental
retardation), partially or completely missing
limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a
wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy,
diabetes, epilepsy, HIV/Aids, multiple sclerosis,
muscular dystrophy, major depression, bipolar
disorder, post-traumatic disorder, obsessivecompulsive disorder, and schizophrenia.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
37
ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 AND
EEOC'S PROPOSED RULEMAKING
• EEOC has proposed the following as
impairments that may be substantially
limiting for some individuals (and therefore
constitute a disability), but not necessarily
for all other individuals: Asthma, high
blood pressure, back and leg impairments,
learning disabilities, panic or anxiety
disorders, some forms of depression,
carpel tunnel syndrome, and
hyperthyroidism.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
38
ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 AND
EEOC'S PROPOSED RULEMAKING
• EEOC has proposed that temporary, non-
chronic impairments of short duration
usually will not substantially limit a major
life activity and therefore usually should
not constitute a disability: Common cold,
seasonal or common influenza, a sprained
joint, minor and non-chronic
gastrointestinal disorders, a broken bone
expected to heal completely, appendicitis,
and seasonal allergies.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
39
YOUR COMPANY'S WEBSITE AND
THE ADA

July 26, 2010: DOJ publishes notice
announcing possible "website
accessibility" regulations

Barriers which may need to be addressed:
•
•
Font color and size that doesn't accommodate
visually impaired
Websites relying heavily on images that can't
be interpreted by "screen readers" or other
assistive technology
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
40
YOUR COMPANY'S WEBSITE AND
THE ADA


Barriers which may need to be
addressed:
•
Websites requiring timed responses from
users without option for more time if
needed
•
CAPTCHAs (distorted text for code-access
purposes) which may not be usable by
visually impaired
Stay tuned!
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
41
ADA UPDATE

ADA May Require Employer to
Accommodate Employee's Difficulty
Commuting to Work.
•
•
•
Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., 22 AD Cases 1857
(3rd Cir. 2010)
Colwell was a cashier working at a Rite Aid
store from 5 to 9 p.m.
She became blind in one eye, and then
requested transfer to day shift, stating she had
trouble driving at night (supported by a doctor's
note).
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
42
ADA UPDATE
• Company rejected her request for day shift,
stating it would not be fair to her coworkers. After trying to rely on rides from
family members, Colwell resigned and sued
for disability discrimination (failure to
accommodate).
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
43
ADA UPDATE
• Court of Appeals agrees with Colwell,
rejecting Company's claim that commuting
to and from work is unrelated to workplace.
• "We hold as a matter of law that changing
Colwell's working schedule to day shifts in
order to alleviate her disability-related
difficulties in getting to work is a type of
accommodation that the ADA
contemplates."
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
44
MISCLASSIFICATION OF
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

Worker misclassification is a hot topic for
employers in 2011 – and in 2012!
The Department of Labor's FY 2012 budget
request earmarked significant resources – almost
$50 million – to "combat worker
misclassification."
On October 13, 2010, Pennsylvania enacted the
Construction Workplace Misclassification Act.


•
Pennsylvania's Act provides detailed criteria for the
appropriate classification of independent contractors and
also imposes a variety of civil and criminal penalties against
businesses and individuals for misclassifying employees
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
45
PA'S CONSTRUCTION WORKPLACE
MISCLASSIFICATION ACT

Very specific requirements to be considered an
independent contractor:
•
•
•

Written contract
Freedom from direction or control – both under the contract
and in fact
Engaged in an independently established trade, occupation
or business
Penalties apply separately for each individual
misclassified:
•
•
Civil penalties – $1,000 to $2,500 per violation; a stop-work
order
Criminal penalties – summary offense ($1,000 penalty),
second or third degree misdemeanor
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
46
MISCLASSIFICATION – WHAT
DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

A sign of things to come: although Pennsylvania's
Act focuses on the construction industry,
misclassification is an important topic for all
employers!
•

Similar criteria will apply to evaluations of independent
contractor misclassification in other areas of the law, potentially
exposing you to liability for misclassified employees under
wage and hour laws, discrimination laws, and in unemployment
compensation
Review your employee classifications now to
ensure that your employees and independent
contractors are appropriately classified to
avoid penalties.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
47
THE GENETIC INFORMATION
NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

What does GINA mean for you?
•
•
•

Prohibits the use of genetic information in
employment decisions
Restricts your ability to request, require, or
purchase genetic information
Requires you to treat all genetic information as
confidential medical information and places
restrictions on the disclosure of such information
The EEOC's GINA regulations became
effective January 10, 2011.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
48
WHAT DO THE EEOC'S GINA
REGULATIONS SAY?

The definition of "genetic information" is very
broad and includes any information about the
genetic information of an individual's family
members.
•

The regulations also define "Family members" very
broadly (e.g., first cousins, great-great-grandchildren)
The EEOC's regulations also provide a "safe
harbor" for employers in situations where
employers must ask employees (or their medical
providers), such as:
•
Medical leave requests
•
Reasonable accommodation requests
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
49
USE GINA'S SAFE HARBOR
LANGUAGE
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
(GINA) prohibits employers and other entities covered by
GINA Title II from requesting or requiring genetic information
of an individual or family member of the individual, except as
specifically allowed by this law. To comply with this law, we
are asking that you not provide any genetic information when
responding to this request for medical information. ‘Genetic
information’ as defined by GINA, includes an individual’s
family medical history, the results of an individual’s or family
member’s genetic tests, the fact that an individual or an
individual’s family member sought or received genetic
services, and genetic information of a fetus carried by an
individual or an individual’s family member or an embryo
lawfully held by an individual or family member receiving
assistive reproductive services.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
50
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF GINA'S
"SAFE HARBOR"

If an employer includes the GINA regulations' "safe
harbor" language in its requests for medical
information, any disclosure of "genetic information"
will be considered inadvertent.

Employers should incorporate the GINA safe harbor
language into every general request for employee
medical information.

Review your forms and employee communications to
ensure that those containing requests for medical
information include the "safe harbor" language:
•
Extra precaution: include the language with FMLA-related requests
or certification, even if your company uses the Department of
Labor's forms!
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
51
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Bruce v. UC Board of Review, May 19, 2010
•
•
Evidence supported Board's findings that
claimant's violation of employer's "no call / no
show" policy was wanton and willful
Claimant's incarceration for non-work related
misconduct did not constitute "good cause" for
her failure to call off work
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
52
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Bruce v. UC Board of Review, May 19, 2010
•
Facts: Bruce and her nephews were arrested
for shoplifting as they left a mall on March 2nd.
Those charges against her were withdrawn,
but as a result of the search at the time of the
arrest, the police discovered illegal drugs in
her purse. While she was trying to post bail on
March 3rd she had her aunt call her employer
and report that her dog was sick and she
would be in to work on March 4th .
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
53
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Bruce v. UC Board of Review, May 19, 2010
•
Facts (continued): Employer learned that
evening Bruce was in jail. On March 4th her
aunt called to report they were on their way to
bail her out. Bruce did not report to work or
call off on March 5th or 6th. Bruce was
terminated for job abandonment for failure call
in for 2 days as per employer's policy. Bruce
entered the ARD program and was placed on
12 months probation.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
54
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Bruce v. UC Board of Review, May 19, 2010
•
Facts (continued): Commonwealth Court held
that Bruce's incarceration was not through no
fault of her own given she was not acquitted of
the charges but entered into the ARD
program, which failed to show that her reason
for not calling off was through no fault of her
own.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
55
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Philadelphia Parking Authority v. UC
Board of Review, July 14, 2010
•
Insufficient evidence to support employer's claim
that claimant deliberately or intentionally violated
work rules by sleeping on the job
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
56
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Philadelphia Parking Authority v. UC
Board of Review, July 14, 2010
•
Facts: Claimant Heeney was assigned to the
"money room" on the 3:30 pm to midnight shift.
She could no longer work in her original position
as a supervisor due to complications of
uncontrolled diabetes and was diagnosed with
sleep apnea. She would sit in the room for hours
at a time with nothing to do
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
57
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Philadelphia Parking Authority v. UC
Board of Review, July 14, 2010
•
Facts (continued): Despite the fact that she
asked for additional work to keep her busy,
employer only provided her with two limited
assignments. Claimant fell asleep in the
money room on four different days. She was
terminated for violating a work rule of sleeping
on the job.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
58
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAW UPDATE

Philadelphia Parking Authority v. UC
Board of Review, July 14, 2010
•
•
Facts (continued): Employer denied having
knowledge of claimants sleep apnea
condition.
Claimant's violation of a work rule was not
intentional and she attempted to resolve her
problem in a responsible manner in order to
protect the interests of her employer.
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
59
EMPLOYMENT AT-WILL /
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE UPDATE
At-will employees may sue for wrongful
discharge if:
 Employee is terminated by hospital
for suing hospital due to serious
injuries incurred by newborn son in
hospital's neonatal intensive care unit
(Haun v. Community Health Systems,
Pa. Super 1/19/11)
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
60
EMPLOYMENT AT-WILL /
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE UPDATE
At-will employees may sue for wrongful
discharge if:
 Employer refuses to rehire employee
due to prior service in the National
Guard (even if employee has already
filed claims under federal and state
military leave laws)(Hamovitz v.
Santa Barbara Applied Research,
Inc., W.D.Pa. 10/19/10)
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
61
WHAT TO EXPECT FOR 2011?



Continued fine tuning of PPACA and
continued debate over longer term
repeal or overhaul
Wage & hour class action litigation
spreads to other industries,
occupations and locales
Social media in the workplace
continue to present new and unusual
issues for HR
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
62
WHAT TO EXPECT FOR 2011?


Fervor over public sector collective
bargaining spreads to PA – but laws
untouched
ADAAA regulations spread the love:
We're all disabled! (The first in-grown
toenail ADA suit?)
© 2011 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
63