Last month, Alexander Lee and Maureen O’Brien joined with Rob Wellner from Velocity Global to discuss the tax and employee benefits complications that arise in cross-border transactions. Key points discussed:

  • Complex tax structures must be considered and understood
  • Transfers of employment may be governed by different statutes in each affected jurisdiction
  • Purchasers may not be ready to provide employment, payroll and benefits on the closing date without significant pre-closing work

View full presentation.

If an employer has employees in San Francisco and is subject to the Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO), the employer must submit its 2017 Annual Reporting Form by April 30, 2018.  Failure to timely submit a report could expose employers to penalties of up to $500 per quarter. To begin, obtain your company’s San Francisco business identification number and submit your report online here.

If you are not sure whether you are subject to the San Francisco’s HCSO, reach out to the author or your regular McDermott attorney.

Todd Solomon urged employers to “get past” a reluctance to deal with transgender employee concerns and “press the issue in order to create a comfortable and inclusive environment” in the workplace. “Support for LGBT employees must come from the top down in order to be effective, and it has to be evidenced by concrete actions in addition to mere words,” Mr. Solomon stated.

Read the full article.

Originally published in The SHRM Blog (Society for Human Resource Management), March 26, 2018.

Avoid the culture wars and legal issues post-transaction. Join our lawyers Kristin E. Michaels, Maureen O’Brien and moderator Judith Wethall for a discussion of how to best integrate employees and employee benefit plans after a transaction.

Register Today.

The increased focus on issues of harassment is putting corporate culture under a microscope. Corporate management and board members—regardless of whether the entity is private, public or charitable—must adjust the way they think about harassment in the workplace and how to respond to allegations of misconduct.

Access the full article.

Join us Wednesday, March 21 at 1:00 pm (EDT) for an in-depth webinar on navigating cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Partners Alexander Lee and Maureen O’Brien along with Rob Wellner from Velocity Global will be presenting the unique tax, employment, benefits and executive compensation issues that arise during and after a global transaction. With these insights, participants will learn how to manage challenges associated with M&A activities and implement new solutions that streamline the process.

Register now.

On February 26, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont) ruled that workplace discrimination on the basis sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

The language of Title VII does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, in 2015, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took the position that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination under the purview of prohibited sex discrimination. In 2016, the EEOC began filing sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits enforcing that position.

Circuit courts are divided on the question of whether claims of sexual orientation discrimination are viable under Title VII. In March of 2017, the Eleventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination does not violate Title VII. The Seventh Circuit held the opposite the following month, and the Supreme Court declined to decide the split in December. With its en banc decision in Melissa Zarda et al. v. Altitude Express, dba Skydive Long Island, et al., the Second Circuit sided with the EEOC and the Seventh Circuit.

As a result of the decision, employers may see increased litigation in the area of sexual orientation discrimination. To protect against potential lawsuits, employers should consider updating their nondiscrimination policies to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, employers should perform sexual orientation harassment training for employees and managers.

The decision also raises potential concerns for employee benefit plans. Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) generally preempts state laws that relate to employee benefit plans, ERISA does not preempt other federal laws, including Title VII. While certain spousal benefits and rights under qualified retirement plans are required by federal law to be extended to same-sex spouses, the same explicit mandates do not apply to welfare plans. Employers should consider whether any of their employee benefit plans discriminate against employees with same-sex spouses (e.g., excluding same-sex spouses from coverage under a self-funded medical plan). Such distinctions may be ripe for legal action as a result of the decision and the EEOC’s ongoing enforcement efforts.