<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Employment Law Blog (US) &#8211; FMGBlogLine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/category/employment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine</link>
	<description>Freeman Mathis &#38; Gary Law Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:13:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.6</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Trifling security is no trifle, PA Supreme Court says</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/trifling-security-is-no-trifle-pa-supreme-court-says/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog - PA and NJ]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12369</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Justin Boron A security check at work is no trifle when it comes to paying hourly workers, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held. Justices voted 5-2 in In Re Amazon Fulfillment Center to hold that time spent waiting in security checks is compensable under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and that there is no [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge rules Massachusetts public accommodation cases can skip MCAD and go directly to court</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/judge-rules-massachusetts-public-accommodation-cases-can-skip-mcad-and-go-directly-to-court/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog - MA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 151B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public accommodation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12348</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Jennifer Markowski and Lori Eller In a recent Massachusetts Superior Court Order, Catherine Peters v. Boston Properties, Inc., et al. Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Judge Debra A. Squires-Lee held that exhaustion of administrative remedies by first filing with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) is [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>District of Massachusetts indicates that employment alone is not sufficient consideration under the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/district-of-massachusetts-indicates-that-employment-alone-is-not-sufficient-consideration-under-the-massachusetts-noncompetition-agreement-act/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2021 19:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog - MA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12345</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Victoria Fuller and Lori Eller In KPM Analytics N. Am Corp. v. Blue Sun Sci., LLC, the District of Massachusetts recently provided some much-needed guidance concerning the enforceability of non-compete agreements governed by the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, M.G.L. 149, § 24L (“MNAA”).  There, the employee signed a Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation, and Confidentiality Agreement shortly [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Here’s a tip: don’t expect the regulation governing servers’ tips to get clear anytime soon</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/heres-a-tip-dont-expect-the-regulation-governing-servers-tips-to-get-clear-anytime-soon/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2021 19:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12324</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Justin Boron As we have previously noted, the regulatory seesaw on the tip credit a business may take on employees’ tips has continued under the Biden Administration. After reversing the previous administration’s banishment of the so-called 80/20 rule, the DOL under the current administration has come up with a new proposed rule. The current [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>READY TO RE-OPEN? Be Aware of California’s New Right-of-Recall Law and Implications for Employers in the Hospitality, Event Center, Airport, Private Club, and Commercial Property Service Industries</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/coronavirus-employment-law-blog/ready-to-re-open-be-aware-of-californias-new-right-of-recall-law-and-implications-for-employers-in-the-hospitality-event-center-airport-private-club-and-commercial-property-service-indus/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Coronavirus - Employment Law Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog - CA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12302</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Mandy Hexom On April 16, 2021, Governor Newson signed into law a right to notice and recall of certain employees in the hospitality, event center, airport, private club, and commercial property service industries who were laid off due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This new law is set forth in California Labor [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Issues Guidance on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine Programs and Permissible Vaccine Incentives-What Employers Need to Consider</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/eeoc-issues-guidance-on-mandatory-covid-19-vaccine-programs-and-permissible-vaccine-incentives-what-employers-need-to-consider/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2021 17:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COVID-19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12241</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: John Bennett and Doug Blatecky Although many businesses have not mandated that their employees get a COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC’s recently released guidance confirms that federal equal employment opportunity laws do not prevent an employer from requiring employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated. It remains unclear whether not businesses can require employees to [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don’t Tell Me Where to Live! &#8211; New Jersey Public Employee Residency Requirements Deemed Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/dont-tell-me-where-to-live-new-jersey-public-employee-residency-requirements-deemed-unconstitutional/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2021 16:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey First Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior Court of New Jersey]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12180</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Stephanie Greenfield A recent decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey held that the New Jersey First Act (“Act”) and its residency requirements are unconstitutional in their present form. The Act, signed by Gov. Chris Christie in 2011, says nearly all public officers and employees must live within the state borders unless they [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts Appeals Court Holds Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Failed to Put Employer on Notice of Claims Tried in Public Hearing</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/massachusetts-appeals-court-holds-massachusetts-commission-against-discrimination-failed-to-put-employer-on-notice-of-claims-tried-in-public-hearing/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 13:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12197</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Victoria Fuller and Matthew Schwartz In 15 LaGrange Street Corporation v. MCAD, Civ. A. No. 20-P-726, the Massachusetts Appeals Court partially vacated a judgment entered by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (the “Commission”) against an employer to the extent it was based on the Hearing Officer’s finding that the complainant-employee was unlawfully terminated on the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eligible Employers Have Until Monday, July 19, 2021 to Submit Their EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection for the 2019 and 2020 Year</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/eligible-employers-have-until-monday-july-19-2021-to-submit-their-eeo-1-component-1-data-collection-for-the-2019-and-2020-year/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2021 15:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12178</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Hannah-Kate Gosch On April 26, 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that it was opening the 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection on its recently relaunched data collection website. Eligible employers have until Monday, July 19, 2021 to submit their 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 data, which breaks down [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Lawsuits Test the Permissibility of Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies in Employment</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/employment/two-lawsuits-test-the-permissibility-of-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-policies-in-employment/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 15:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law Blog (US)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COVID-19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mRNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vaccination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12159</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Michael Hirota As the COVID-19 vaccine becomes more widely available within the United States, many employers are grappling with how to incorporate employee vaccination into their return-to-work requirements.&#160; Two recent lawsuits in New Mexico and California challenging mandatory vaccination policies represent the first lawsuits in what could be a new type of COVID-19 litigation [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
