Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
DOL's New Proposed FMLA Regulations: They Help Employers, But Is It Enough?
Since the Department of Labor's ('DOL') regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ('FMLA') were first issued in 1995, they have caused a degree of consternation for employers navigating some of their more confusing aspects, and grappling with employee abuse, particularly with respect to the regulations' intermittent-leave provisions.
In an effort to add clarity, the DOL published new proposed changes to the regulations on Feb. 11, 2008, on the heels of its December 2006 Request for Information, under which it received numerous comments from employers seeking relief. The proposed regulations clarify some uncertainties, but many remain.
The FMLA applies to 'covered employers,' defined as those with 50 or more employees working within a 75-mile radius. The definition brings within its ambit most medium- to large-sized law firms, including firms with multiple smaller offices in the same metropolitan area. The FMLA requires covered employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period to eligible employees in connection with certain qualifying events, such as the birth of an employee's child, or placement of a child for adoption or foster care with the employee, or the employee's inability to work because of a serious health condition, or the serious health condition of the employee's spouse, parent, or child. Employees may take FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule under certain conditions, and employers must reinstate employees to the same or equivalent position, and must maintain the employee's group health coverage during the leave period.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?