Yelena Barychev and Brooke T. Iley
On February 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much anticipated decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Paul Somers that the anti-retaliation protections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) do not extend to an individual who reports alleged company misconduct only internally without submitting this information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).
Paul Somers worked at Digital Realty Trust, Inc. as a vice president of portfolio management. While employed, he reported possible securities law violations to senior management but never reported this information to the SEC. Mr. Somers’ employment was subsequently terminated. He then sued Digital Realty in federal court accusing the company of violating the Dodd-Frank Act by firing him for complaining internally about alleged violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). Mr. Sommers never sought relief directly under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The district court, and then the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, supported Mr. Somers reliance on the SEC’s broad interpretation of the definition of the term “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Continue reading “Blowing the Whistle Internally Is Not Enough to Be Covered by the Anti-Retaliation Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act”
Since January 1, 2018, the date changes to the tax law passed by Congress at the end of December (the “Tax Act”) became effective and provided new individual marginal tax rates and modified deductions, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has been scrambling to provide guidance as to how those changes are to be taken into account for income withholding tax purposes.
In recent years, employers have used unpaid interns to perform many duties otherwise completed by paid employees. Determining whether to classify a worker as an unpaid intern or employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) can be tricky for employers—and getting it wrong can have, and has had, serious consequences. With the recent boom in class action litigation by interns claiming misclassification, employers have to be careful.
Joining Arizona, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, the Maryland Legislature enacted legislation requiring employers in Maryland to provide paid sick and safe leave to employees by overriding Governor Hogan’s veto of the Maryland Healthy Working Families Act (“MD HWFA”). Unless the date for implementation is delayed by the Legislature, the requirements of the Act go into effect on February 12, 2018. 
Proclaiming it an effort to strengthen the middle class in Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf announced this week a proposal to modernize the Commonwealth’s outdated overtime rules to increase pay for nearly a half million workers—he’s instructed the Department of Labor & Industry (“DOLI”) to update the white collar exemption overtime regulations and more than double the salary threshold necessary to be exempt from overtime. Sound familiar? 
As the breaking news reaffirms in graphic detail on an almost daily basis, we are in a transformative time when it comes to how claims of harassment are reported and handled in the workplace. From Hollywood to Rockefeller Center, and everywhere in-between, employers must be prepared. On December 15, 2017, Blank Rome’s Labor and Employment co-chairs, Scott Cooper and Brooke Iley, held an emergency briefing by webinar entitled: “
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”), which has been approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, includes a provision that eliminates the “performance-based” exception to the $1 million limit on compensation deductions, and makes certain other important related changes. Under current law, compensation deductions for a publicly-traded employer for its top executives (other than the Chief Financial Officer) is limited to $1 million, plus compensation that qualifies as performance-based. Qualified performance-based pay generally includes stock options and stock appreciation rights, and restricted stock, restricted stock units, and cash incentive bonuses conditioned on the satisfaction of pre-established quantitative performance conditions approved in advance.