Subscribe to Our Monthly Newsletters

Stay updated on trending legal insights and get our attorneys' take on the latest industry news.

Marketing by

Paul Zimmerman

Showing 6 posts from September 2018.

Photo of M&R Blog

blueskyimage ©

California’s Salary History Ban Just Got a Bit Easier to Understand

That employers in California are not allowed to ask job applicants about their prior compensation is, by now, old news. The prohibition was signed into law in October 2017, when California joined several other jurisdictions nationwide in a move to close the gender pay gap by banning salary history inquiries.

Indeed, California Labor Code §432 makes it unlawful for employers to rely on an applicant’s salary history information in determining whether to extend an offer of employment or the salary to be paid. There is more. The law also requires an employer, upon an applicant’s “reasonable request,” to provide the “pay scale” applicable to the position applied for. (Read More)

Photo of M&R Blog

Viktor Bondar ©

The Joint Employer Saga Continues: Proposal by NLRB Narrows Scope of Liability

For years, the words “joint employer” have figured prominently in the parlance of labor attorneys across the country. This theory of liability has been subject to something of a tug of war, which can be traced to the halls of power in Washington where, in 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) doubled down on an employer’s legal exposure to employees—quite literally. (Read More)

Photo of M&R Blog

belchonock ©

AB 3080: Arbitration and Nondisclosure Agreements in the Crosshairs

Assembly Bill 3080 is pending legislation that should be of great interest to all California employers. The proposed law seeks to prohibit employers in California from requiring an applicant or employee to agree to arbitrate discrimination, harassment or retaliation claims as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of any employment-related benefit. As pointed out in one of our previous blog posts, not only does AB 3080 look to make many employment arbitration agreements unlawful in the Golden State, but it also forbids an employer from prohibiting an employee or independent contractor from disclosing sexual harassment he or she suffers, witnesses or discovers. The upshot: if the bill is signed into law, these banned acts will be characterized as unlawful employment practices under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which would entitle employees to remedies for every violation. (Read More)

Photo of M&R Blog

ginasanders ©

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Do Insurance and Real Estate Brokers Benefit?

Due to the double taxation of C-Corporations and their shareholders, most small business usually prefer flow-through entities such as S-Corporations, LLC’s and Partnerships for the operation of their businesses. Section 199A of the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides that owner(s) of these flow-through entities may be entitled to take a deduction equal to 20% of the entity’s "qualified business income" (“QBI”) earned from the business. Qualified business income can best be described as the ordinary, non-investment income of the business, less any business expenses. QBI excludes passive income like interest, dividends or capital gains. (Read More)

Photo of M&R Blog

Stepan Popov ©

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Offshore Insurance Subsidiaries Dance to a Different BEAT

Congress has come up with yet another good acronym – BEAT (Base Erosion Anti-abuse Tax). As is typically the case, when Congress uses an acronym in legislation, it is inevitably accompanied by complexity. BEAT, as referenced in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) is no exception. (Read More)

Photo of M&R Blog

Maria Kraynova ©

Mind If I Take a Seat: Shareholder vs. Board Votes in Venture Capital Transactions

Seats on a board of directors are, no doubt, coveted. In fact, when investing venture capital into a company through an equity financing, VC investors often negotiate to receive one or more board seats for themselves or their designees. Additionally, these investors frequently require that specified matters not be pursued by the company without board approval (including approval by the VC’s board designees). To a large degree, angling for a board presence and mandating board approval makes sense to the extent doing so grants the VC investors a greater level of control and serves to protect their investment. But to what degree should important business decisions be taken, by default, at the board level? And when might it be a better practice to put certain company actions to a shareholder vote? (Read More)