The Complete Guide to Human Resources and the Law offers fast, dependable, plain English legal guidance for HR-related situations from ADA accommodation, diversity training, and privacy issues to hiring and termination, employee benefit plans, compensation, and recordkeeping. It brings you the most up-to-date information as well as practical tips and checklists in a well-organized, easy-to-use resource.
The 2014 Edition provides new and expanded coverage of issues such as:
- A discussion of Liberty University v. Geithner, 133 S. Ct. 679
- The Supreme Court denied Hobby Lobby's request for an emergency injunction that would have prevented the PPACA contraceptive mandate from taking effect
- On the last day of the term ending in June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the section restricting "marriage" for federal-law purposes to a union of one man and one woman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional
- Same-sex marriage is now legal in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington
- The required FMLA poster and forms were revised
- A late 2012 per curiam Supreme Court decision held that the Oklahoma Supreme Court should not have invalidated on public policy grounds, the noncompete provisions of two employment contracts
- The Sixth Circuit held that Supplemental Unemployment Benefit payments to employees who are terminated involuntarily because of business cessation are not FICA wages
- The validity of hundreds of actions taken by the NLRB has been called into question by an early 2013 D.C. Circuit decision
- In late 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that a supermarket's privately owned entrance area is not a "public forum" as defined by the California constitution
- The HHS, the DOL, and the Treasury proposed rules supporting wellness programs, including participatory programs that are generally available without regard to the employee's health status (e.g., rewards for taking a health risk assessment; reimbursement of gym membership)
- The Supreme Court drew a distinction between Title VII suits based on personal characteristics (race, color, sex, religion, and national origin) and retaliation suits, requiring retaliation plaintiffs to prove that retaliation was the but-for cause of the adverse job action taken against them
- And much more!