data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73d28/73d28ba77d13c37667be458866d7da15ed3a969d" alt=""
Q & A
Q: Is a terminated employee eligible for unemployment benefits?
Q: May overtime be averaged out over two or more weeks?
Q: Is a terminated employee eligible for unemployment benefits?
Q: May overtime be averaged out over two or more weeks?
Oregon: Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements Requires New Minimum Salary
Noncompetition agreements are generally enforceable in Oregon if:
The employee receives written notice that the noncompetition agreement is a condition of employment at least two weeks before employment starts OR the employee enters into the agreement upon a bona fide advancement;
The employee is a salaried exempt employee with an annual income higher than a minimum amount that is adjusted annually for inflation;
The employer has a protectable interest; and
The employer provides a signed, written copy of the noncompetition agreement within 30 days after the employee’s termination.
For the second bullet point above, according to the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries, in 2025, noncompetition agreements may be enforceable against employees who receive an annual gross income greater than $116,427.
As inclement weather descends upon us, or other natural disasters occur, businesses face the critical decision of whether to suspend operations to safeguard employees. While prioritizing safety is essential, these disruptions bring wage & hour considerations into sharp focus. Our aim is to guide you through the complexities of handling wage & hour issues during unexpected closures and breakdown the legal obligations and practical strategies you can implement to manage such situations effectively.
We thought it would be a great time to remind everyone of some common issues during this (somewhat crazy) time of year, sort of an annual holiday refresher to keep everyone on the right track!
On November 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in Texas v. Department of Labor to the state of Texas and a group of more than a dozen business organizations, striking down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) April 2024 rule to raise the minimum salary for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s executive, administrative, and professional employee overtime exemption.
It’s that time of year again! The holidays are right around the corner, and businesses are gearing up for parties and events, and with that comes many questions and concerns. We are here for you!
We thought it would be a great time to remind everyone of some common issues during this (somewhat crazy) time of year, sort of an annual holiday refresher to keep everyone on the right track!
Washington appellate court clarifies employer obligations when employees miss meal breaks
The case involved a class action of Virginia Mason Medical Center employees. The employees alleged that even though the hospital had mechanisms for employees to report when they worked through meal periods and receive pay for that time worked, employees were not adequately compensated for the loss of their right to take a meal period.
New Hampshire: employers’ right to regulate guns at work gets restricted
Currently, private employers can bar employees from storing guns in personal vehicles parked in the employer’s parking lots. They also can ban all firearms, permit firearms, or place conditions on possession of firearms on their property.
Q: I had an employee get married and change their name. How do I handle this? Are there specific things I need to consider and update?
A: That’s a great question, and, yes, when an employee has a name change, employers should address several administrative issues, like:
It’s not unusual for employers to ask employees to be on-call. Many businesses need to have someone available to answer calls and address emergencies during non-business hours. It can promote good customer service.
Did you know that religious protections were expanded in Utah?
The new law went into effect on May 1, 2024.
The new law expands workplace protections in Section 112 of the Utah Antidiscrimination Act by prohibiting employers from making employees engage in “religiously objectionable expression” that the employee reasonably believes would burden or offend the “employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”