Technology Employment Law

Technology Employment Law

Legal Insight for Technology, Media, and Telecommunications Employers

Beyond HIPAA: New Jersey Law Requires Encryption of Personal Data by Health Insurance Carriers

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Mollie K. O’Brien at Epstein Becker Green wrote an advisory on a new law that will increase the protection of personal information under HIPPA by mandating encryption on all computerized data collected by health insurance carriers: “Beyond HIPAA: New Jersey Law Requires Encryption of Personal Data by Health Insurance Carriers.” Following is an excerpt:

In response to data breaches that have occurred across the United States, several of which involved the theft of laptop computers, beginning August 1, 2015, health insurance carriers in New Jersey will be obligated to do more to protect patient information than simply comply with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). A new law, signed by Governor Chris Christie on January 9, 2015, specifically requires health insurance carriers to encrypt electronically gathered and stored personal information.

The key terms in the law are defined as follows:

  • “Health insurance carriers” means “an insurance company, health service corporation, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, or health maintenance organization authorized to issue health benefits plans in this State.”
  • “Personal information” means “an individual’s first name or first initial and last name linked with any one or more of the following data elements: (1) Social Security number; (2) driver’s license number of State identification card number; (3) address; or (4) identifiable health information.”

Read the full advisory here.

What to Do If You Are (or Don’t Want to Be) Hacked

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

In light of the many high profile cyber-attacks on businesses this past year, employers should assess their vulnerability relative to data breaches and take steps to protect themselves from hackers as well as more innocuous business practices that could result in data breaches. Businesses that handle protected health information are regulated under HIPAA to adopt administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality of this information. However, various state and federal laws place duties upon employers to protect non-HIPAA-covered sensitive information in a secure manner.  Considering the recent hacking attacks, as well as the Obama Administration’s focus on cyber-security issues businesses should understand their risk relative to cyber security and consider adopting these safeguards to reduce their vulnerability to a business acceptable level. As discussed below, businesses should protect their customers, employees, and themselves by: (1) conducting a risk assessment to identify their system’s vulnerabilities; (2) adopting and regularly auditing compliance with network security policies; and (3) utilizing physical safeguards to deny unauthorized users system access.

In the wake of the massive attacks against Sony, its employees have filed a putative class action Michael Corona and Christina Mathis v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., No. 2:14-cv-9600 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Sony was negligent for allowing itself to be hacked. The Complaint alleges that Sony breached its duty to its employees to implement technical safeguards, specifically: “failing to properly and adequately encrypt data, losing control of and failing to timely regain control over Sony Network’s cryptographic keys, and improperly storing and retaining” personal identifying information. Businesses should conduct a risk assessment or penetration test to determine their network’s vulnerabilities and ensure that they are exercising reasonable care in protecting employee information. This will allow businesses to identify and address their most pressing vulnerabilities.

Even the most formidable of technical safeguards can be compromised without adequate administrative safeguards such as policies regarding the storage of confidential information and computer use. In addition to implementing these policies it is vital that employers adequately train employees regarding these policies. ICANN, the nonprofit organization in charge of assigning internet domain names, was hacked this past year. The hackers penetrated ICANN’s security using a “spear phishing” attack against ICANN’s employees. The hackers disguised emails containing malware as internal ICANN emails, and an employee fell for the ruse. Adopting robust internet security policies and educating employees on how to follow these policies greatly reduces the risk of an employee compromising network security. Employers should also audit their network security policies on an annual basis or as systems change to ensure compliance with these policies.

By limiting access to workstations and electronic media, companies can implement physical safeguards to protect confidential information. By requiring employees to keep doors locked and not leave company devices unattended, as well as enforcing and educating employees regarding these policies, employers can reduce their vulnerability to hackers.

In addition to HIPAA and common law negligence claims, victims of hacking are subject to state laws requiring them to notify everyone whose information may have been compromised. Because each state’s law protects residents of that particular state, companies may be subject to a variety of different disclosure requirements. For example, an employer with employees in California, Virginia, and New York would be subject to three different sets of laws governing the content of the disclosure and who is entitled to receive it.[1] All three laws punish failure to promptly disclose a data breach with consequential damages associated with the cost of identity theft protection, and the economic consequences of identity theft. New York’s law also provides for punitive damages of up to $150,000 for knowing or reckless failures to promptly disclose.

More data breach reporting laws are likely on the way. The Obama administration recently proposed a federal data breach reporting law and the New York Attorney General recently proposed measures to toughen New York’s law. Businesses should carefully monitor new legislative developments to ensure compliance with the most up to date guidance in this rapidly transforming area of the law. Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., attorneys can assist in conducting risk assessments and penetration tests and assist in developing network security policies.


[1] California Civil Code § 179.80; Code of Virginia § 18.2-186.6; New York General Business Law § 899-aa.

Key Issues Facing Places of Public Accommodation at the 25th Anniversary of the ADA

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Joshua A. Stein authored Epstein Becker Green’s recent issue of its Take 5 newsletter.   In this special edition, Josh focuses on the 25thAnniversary of the ADA and recent developments and future trends under Title III of the ADA. 

  1. Website Accessibility
  2. Accessible Point-of-Sale Devices and Other Touchscreen Technology
  3. Movie Theater Captioning & Audio (Narrative) Description
  4. The Availability of Sign Language Interpreters at Health Care Facilities
  5. “Drive By” Design/Construction Lawsuits

Read the full newsletter here.

Epstein Becker Green Technology, Media & Telecommunications Strategic Industry Group Co-Hosts Informative Roundtable Discussion Regarding Financing and Workplace Management Issues

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

On January 21, 2015 at The Standard, Highline, New York, New York, members of Epstein Becker Green’s Technology, Media & Telecommunications Strategic Industry Group, Stout Risius Ross (SRR), Axial and the New York State Innovation Venture Capital Fund led an informative roundtable discussion regarding “Moving to the Next Level: Valuation & Financing Considerations and Employment Strategies for Start-Ups and Emerging Technology Companies.”  This two-part discussion addressed how to take a company to the next level from a financial and valuation perspective, and relatedly, how to manage and mitigate workplace employment issues to ensure the human capital engine of the business is sound.

Joining Scott Weingust, Director in SRR’s Dispute Advisory and Forensics Group and Co-Leader of SRR’s Intellectual Property Valuation Group, on the discussion regarding valuations and attracting capital were Sam Jacobs, Senior Vice President for Sales and Business Development of Axial, and Brian Keil, Managing Director of New York State Innovation Venture Capital Fund.  This panel addressed such issues as understanding value of early state technology companies and ways to attract capital.   Joining Co-Leaders of the EBG TMT Industry Group, Ian Carleton Schaefer and Michelle Capezza, on the discussion regarding workplace management issues were EBG attorneys Ian Nanos, Nancy Gunzenhauser, Dustin Stark and Kimberly Grant.   This panel addressed such issues as attracting and hiring talent, immigration concerns, development of workplace policies, employee benefits and compensation to motivate and retain talent, as well as considerations when ending the employment relationship.  Speakers from both EBG and SRR also highlighted the linkage between sound employment practices and its effect on a start-up’s valuation proposition, their attractiveness to capital and acquisition, in addition to compliance considerations.

Growing today’s TMT companies and managing the human capital that will drive success is not an easy task.  With the proper guidance and advice to secure the necessary capital, and keep your workplace compliant with all applicable laws, you can grow your business and attract, motivate and retain the right talent.  We look forward to assisting you achieve your business goals.

For additional information, please contact Michelle Capezza at mcapezza@ebglaw.com or Ian Carleton Schaefer at ischaefer@ebglaw.com.

Current Visa Caps Hold for 2015 but Bills Introduced to Loosen Restrictions on High-Skilled Guest-Workers

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

By Patrick Lucignani

Executives from companies with technology components and interests often ask if, and when, meaningful changes will be made to the U.S. immigration laws that apply to high-skilled foreign workers, and in particular, to the much discussed H-1B visa program.  While the enactment of such reform is uncertain at the present time, recent developments in the new year suggest that change may be on the way.

Legislators have renewed efforts in this new session of Congress to significantly expand laws for guest-workers in the technology industry against the backdrop of the continued and spirited debate over such immigration issues.  Bipartisan bills just introduced in the United States Senate would, among other things, increase the number of visas and green cards available to high-skilled workers and create an “entrepreneur’s visa” to allow individuals who want to start companies to stay in the country.   Though versions of these bills have been proposed in previous sessions, only to later languish, observers are more optimistic that the legislation, in some form, can now pass both houses.

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the first bill,  named the Immigration Innovation or “I-Squared” Act of 2015.  I-Squared would increase the annual cap on the number of H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000, and possibly even up to 195,000 per year based on demand.  Companies operating in the U.S.—from start-ups to long-established giants—are keenly aware of the fierce competition for an H-1B visa, which can remain valid for six years.  In 2014, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) received roughly 172,500 applications for only 65,000 new H-1Bs, taking about a week for the available visa quotient to be filled.

Further, I-Squared would permit companies to hire an unlimited number of workers with master’s degrees or higher from U.S. institutions in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and math).  Currently, the first 20,000 H-1B applications for those with advanced degrees are not counted against the 65,000 cap.  Consequently, should the bill become law, certain U.S. universities specializing in those programs could find an influx of foreign students applying to those schools to secure such advanced degrees for eventual U.S. employment.

The legislation would also increase employee mobility by establishing a grace period during which foreign workers can change jobs and not be out of status so long as an employer files a petition to extend, change or adjust the status of that individual within sixty days of the date the worker ended his/her employment.  The bill would further allow foreign students studying in the U.S. to benefit from “dual intent,” which permits a student on a temporary visa to intend to seek permanent residence in the U.S.

Notably, I-Squared would exempt many categories of workers and their family members from the numerical quota imposed on employment-based green cards.  While the bill does not expressly raise the numerical quota, its exemptions would effectively more than double the quota for this type of green card.     More specifically on this point, I-Squared would:

  • Authorize employment for the dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders;
  • Exempt certain categories of individuals, such as those with “extraordinary ability” and “outstanding professors or researchers”, from the cap on such employment-based green cards;
  • Allow for the recapturing of over 200,000 employment-based green cards that were approved by Congress in previous years but were not used; and
  • Eliminate annual per country limits for employment based visa petitioners and adjust per-country caps for family-based immigrant visas.

A second bill, known as The Startup Act, is designed to boost growth in start-up companies through a combination of immigration and tax regulatory modifications.  Also a bipartisan effort, The Startup Act shares similarities with I-Squared (e.g., elimination of per-country caps) but with a more targeted approach.  Highlights of the bill include:

  • Creation of an Entrepreneur’s Visa allowing foreign-born entrepreneurs in the United States to remain in the country to launch businesses.  At this time, the bill proposes 75,000 such visas.  The visas could be revoked during a four year period after it is granted if the U.S. Department of Homeland Security determines that the individual is no longer qualified;
  • Creation of a new “STEM Visa” permitting U.S.-educated foreign students in the United States legally, who graduate with an advanced degree in a STEM program, to stay in the country.  Currently, the bill allows for 50,000 such visas;
  • Permanent exemption of capital gains taxes on the sale of startup stock held for at least five tears; and
  • Creation of a limited research and development tax credit up to $250,000 for young start-ups less than five years old and with less than $5 million in annual receipts.

In short, I-Squared and The Startup Act would generally create a considerably more favorable climate for those technology companies and potential entrepreneurs that plan to employ more foreign nationals or to launch new enterprises in the Unites States.  Yet all stakeholders in the high-skilled guest-worker discussion must be mindful that the current 65,000 H-1B visa cap has not changed in ten years. The prospect that these new pieces of legislation become law in some shape is, despite the much publicized support from Mark Zuckerberg and other titans in the tech industry, very much unsettled.  We will continue to closely monitor and report on the progress of these bills in the interim.

Employers are therefore reminded that the deadline to file new H-1B petitions is April 1, 2015 (for the fiscal year 2016 quota).  Once the H-1B cap has been reached, employers will be unable to file new cap-subject H-1B petitions until April 1, 2016.  Naturally, employers should evaluate their workforce needs, determine what visa petitions they intend to file and also now plan to discuss with counsel concerning what options, if any, are available to those employees whose petitions are not accepted this year.

Five Employment Law Pitfalls Start-Ups Should Avoid

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

The common denominator for all start-ups – whether your start-up has $50 or $500 million in its coffers – is its people.  As they grow beyond founders, each start-up and emerging technology company will welcome new faces into the organization to deliver on its business plan.  Whether they are new partners, employees, freelancers, consultants or otherwise – it is the human capital engine that often dictates the success or failure of an otherwise brilliant idea.

While welcoming like-minded, passionate people into one’s organization can be source of immense pride for founders, it also presents employment law challenges and pitfalls that often go overlooked, much to the detriment of the bottom-line.  Our experience in this space informs the top five most overlooked (and potentially most damaging) employment law pitfalls your start-up should avoid:

1. Improperly Classifying Employees as Independent Contractors. One of the biggest mistakes that start-ups make is improperly classifying their workers.  In an environment where companies are in a perpetual state of raising funds, there is often a natural cycle of adding workers in ones and twos and as the company’s coffers dictate.  Because of this economic reality, many start-ups will engage what they will deem “consultants,” “contractors,” “freelancers,” or even “interns” in order to help execute their business plan.  But this loose-goosy nomenclature can have serious consequences from an employment law perspective.

First, the determination of who is a “contractor” and who is an “employee” is dictated not by the two parties, but rather by federal and state wage-hour laws that employ multi-factor tests.  The tests, while varied, ultimately look to the degree of control the company has over the worker, whether the worker provides similar services to other companies and hold themselves out to the public for such engagements, the permanence of the relationship, as well as other factors.  Independent contractors are not subject to wage and hour laws (such as overtime and minimum wage requirements); nor are they subject to payroll tax.

Not surprisingly then, the consequences to a start-up for mischaracterizing an employee as an independent contractor can be significant, if not crippling.  These include the payment of wages (minimum wages and overtime) that the employee would have otherwise been entitled to had they been classified correctly.  Payroll tax liability can also be incurred as a result of the misclassification, which can also carry with it interest and penalties at best, and criminal penalties at worst.

One helpful way to ensure you are classifying your workers correctly is to create an accurate job description.  Creating a good job description is valuable on multiple levels: it lays the foundation for what the job is and what the job is not; it can help the employer (and their counsel) “reality check” the position to properly classify the job, it can be used to differentiate and evaluate candidates on job-related reasons; and it can be used as a benchmark to evaluate a worker’s performance as appropriate.

2. Violating Wage Hour Laws by Paying Employees with Equity Rather Than Paying Minimum Wage and Overtime.  After classifying a worker as an employee, many start-ups find that they do not have the cash flow to pay an employee a standard hourly wage or salary, and choose to offer equity, either in lieu of or in addition to an employee’s wages.  This raises several concerns.

First, as a general matter, stock and options in a company do not properly count for purposes of minimum wage calculations.  The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, and many states and cities have minimum wage laws that are significantly higher.  By offering a sub-minimum wage rate that is supplemented by equity, start-ups are violating wage-hour laws.  Wage and hour lawsuits – which are up 438% since the year 2000 – are among the most popular – and most expensive to litigate and defend.  So, it is essential that workers are classified and paid properly.

Overtime, and the failure to pay overtime is another minefield for start-ups.  Wage-hour laws distinguish between exempt employees (those who are ineligible for overtime by making at least $455/week (the “salary basis test”), and whose job duties fall into one of several exemptions, including executive, administrative, computer professionals (the analysis of which is anything but straightforward).  Any employee who does not meet these criteria – which may include CEOs and founders – are eligible for and must be paid overtime for time worked.

State law differences further complicate matters.  For example, overtime in Silicon Alley (for hours worked in excess of 40 for non-exempt employees) is calculated differently than overtime in Silicon Valley (which also requires the payment of daily overtime for hours worked in excess of 8 in one day) . While a common practice, keep in mind that providing equity does not alleviate an employer from the minimum wage laws, nor the obligation to pay overtime to non-exempt employees.  Just as with misclassification of employees as independent contractors, the financial ramifications of misclassifying an employee as exempt when they are truly non-exempt can be staggering and can undermine, if not cripple an otherwise sound business plan.

3. Maintaining Invalid or Ineffective Restrictive Covenants.  Many start-ups prudently strive to safeguard their company’s treasures, secrets and intellectual property.  Vehicles commonly employed are confidentiality agreements, non-competes, non-solicitations and NDAs to effectuate this end (collectively “Restrictive Covenants”).  A non-compete provides that an employee will not work for a competitor after her employment ends.  A non-solicit agreement can be directed at either customers and/or employees, and prevents a former employee from seeking out the company’s customers to do business with a new employer or poaching current employees to be hired by the new employer.  Confidentiality agreements and NDAs protect certain information that is not publicly known.

But after committing pen to paper, too few founders and start-ups ask the critical questions:  “Are my Restrictive Covenants really doing what we want them to do?”  “Are they fit for purpose?” “Are they truly reasonable, and will they be upheld?”  Since Restrictive Covenants are generally not self-enforcing, start-ups should also candidly ask themselves:  “Am I willing to commit the time, money and resources to enforce these provisions in court?”

It is also important to be mindful that every state treats these types of agreements differently, depending on factors such as length of time, geographic reach, scope, and whether the agreement can be “blue penciled,” or changed by the court for reasonableness. In fact, in California, non-compete agreements are invalid, and their mere inclusion in an agreement may subject an employer to tort liability. It is essential that your Restrictive Covenants are properly drafted with counsel, that they are tailored to the individual to whom they are proffered (one size probably does not fit all), and takes into account where the company may seek to enforce those agreements.

4. Failing to Establish Any Workplace Policies. When in Doubt, Start with Two.  Most start-ups are not concerned with creating robust employment policies when they have less than 5 employees on the payroll.  While it is understandable that creating a comprehensive handbook is not on the top of the list of priorities, and indeed may not be practical given small numbers and the nascent stage of your business, all start-ups, no matter what the size, should at least have two:  a sexual harassment and equal employment opportunity policy.

Under federal law (and many state and city law counterparts), an employer can demonstrate that having both a sexual harassment policy with a complaint procedure (so employees can let the company know if harassment or discrimination is occurring in the workplace) is a defense to a sexual harassment or other discrimination claim. If an employee files suit for sexual harassment or other discriminatory conduct, but never complained to the employer first, the employer can use that as an affirmative defense to the claim. Many state and city anti-discrimination laws apply to employers with only a single employee, and having a policy is a tremendous benefit should litigation arise.

A sexual harassment policy is relatively simple to establish, and it may be posted conspicuously in an employment manual, on the company’s intranet site, or provided separately as part of new hire paperwork.  It is also beneficial to have the employee sign an acknowledgement form stating that they have received and understand the company’s EEO policy and its complaint procedure.  Maintaining such internal controls will also put the start-up in good stead with strategic partners and customers.

5. Mismanaging Employees Who Leave Your Start-Up. Start-ups are often focused on just that – starting up.  Unfortunately, it is inevitable that some employment relationships just will not work out.  When an employee leaves, either voluntarily or involuntarily, start-ups should be focused on protecting assets.  If an employee is being let go, you may wish to consider a separation agreement, where an employee waives his or her right to bring a lawsuit in exchange for an amount of money or other consideration.  When terminating an employee, the last thing most employers want to do is give them more, but entering into such an agreement could be significantly less expensive than a lawsuit – representing a good long-term investment.

Start-ups will also want to focus on protecting its physical and intellectual property when employees leave the business. If the employee has access to or managed your company’s social media accounts, then it will be important to ensure that all passwords are returned or changed.  Many lawsuits have been filed recently asserting that company social media accounts (including LinkedIn and Twitter) belong to employees who write for them, and that the followers or connections belong to the employee – an area of law that is still developing.

Further, if an employee was given a phone, tablet, or laptop, it will be imperative to have those devices returned.  If the company allows an employee to use his or her own phone (e.g. the employer has a “Bring Your Own Device” practice), make certain that work email gets wiped from his or her personal phone.

And remember all of those Restrictive Covenants you had the employee agree to?  Be sure to remind them on their way out that their obligations thereunder continue post-employment.  Send “reminder” letters as needed.  In the event a former employee begins to engage in conduct that potentially violates their post-employment obligations, consider ratcheting up the correspondence, both with the employee, and potentially their new employer.

While it may defy common sense and a company’s best intentions, it is often best to plan for the end – at the beginning.

January 2015 Immigration Alert

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Robert S. Groban, Jr. and the Immigration Law Group of Epstein Becker Green recently issued an alert that will be of interest to employers. Following are the main topic headings:

Read the full alert here.

Legislation Introduced to Change Full-Time Employee Definition under the Affordable Care Act

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague August Emil Huelle at Epstein Becker Green has an Employee Benefits Insight Blog post that will be of interest to many of our readers: “Legislation Introduced to Change Full-Time Employee Definition under the Affordable Care Act.”

Following is an excerpt:

On January 7, 2015, U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D–IN) along with Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, legislation that would amend the definition of a “full-time employee” under the Affordable Care Act to an employee who works an average of 40 hours per week.  In the coming days, the House is expected to vote on its own version of this legislation, the Save American Workers Act.

The teeth of the Affordable Care Act have the ability to sink excise taxes on employers who do not offer affordable healthcare coverage to full-time employees, which the Affordable Care Act defines as employees who work an average of 30 hours per week.  In announcing the introduction of the legislation, Senator Collins argued that the current definition “creates a perverse incentive for businesses to cut their employees’ hours so they are no longer considered full time.”  The implication being that the Forty Hours is Full Time Act will increase employee wages because the employers who reportedly reduced employee hours below 30 per week in an effort to avoid costs associated with providing healthcare coverage to employees (or the tax for not providing coverage to employees) are the same employers who will raise employee hours above 30 per week if they are not faced with such costs.

Read the full blog post here.

Wellness Programs in a Multigenerational Workplace

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

While the use of wellness programs may be desirable to help save health plan costs and improve employee health, care should be taken to ensure that the program is designed to comply with all applicable laws.

In addition, prior to implementation, the composition of the workforce and potential for adverse impacts against different multigenerational members should be evaluated in order to determine whether the intended program is worthwhile.

I discuss this in my article “Wellness Programs in a Multigenerational Workplace,” in Confero magazine.

Following is an excerpt:

The modern workplace continues to evolve and change. One factor greatly influencing workplace dynamics as well as employee benefits needs is the multigenerational composition of the workforce. Studies regarding employee benefits trends show that millennials (a generation that began in the early 1980s), who have entered the workforce, desire a wide array of employee benefits—even more so than Generation X-ers or baby boomers. For millennials who came of age in the time of the “helicopter parents,” the desire for employer support and protection with regard to retirement, health, and welfare security has increased. As compared to the independent-minded Generation X-ers, millenials are less opposed to employers being involved in their health and they prefer a paternalistic approach with regard to employee benefits. Baby boomers are focused on having less time to financially recover from the recession before they retire and may plan to work past age 65 or even on a part-time basis when they retire. Employers seeking to capture the loyalty of their diverse employees must take note of the different expectations of their multigenerational workers, as well as the impact that they will have on the attractiveness of an employee benefits program.

Download a complimentary PDF of the full article here (see page 13).

 

2015 Has an Extra Pay Period: Dilemma for Those Paying Exempt Employees Bi-Weekly

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleagues Michael Kun and Jeffrey Ruzal at Epstein Becker Green have a Wage & Hour Defense Blog post that will be of interest to many of our readers: “Unusual Wage Payment Issue in 2015 for Many Employers: 27 Bi-Weekly Pay Periods, Not 26.”

Following is an excerpt:

There is an unusual wage issue for 2015 that will affect many employers that pay exempt employees on a bi-weekly basis (rather than weekly, semi-monthly or monthly).

It is an issue that may have both financial and legal repercussions.

And it is an issue we suspect many employers had not noticed or considered.

With 52 weeks in a year, there normally are 26 bi-weekly pay periods in a calendar year.  In 2015, however, there will be 27 for many employers.

This oddity occurs every 11 years.  In short, it happens because 26 bi-weekly paychecks only cover 364 days in a year, not 365 (or 366 in Leap Years).  Those extra one or two “unaccounted for” days add up to create an additional pay period every 11 years.

The extra pay period is more than just an oddity.  It raises a dilemma for those employers that pay exempt employees on a bi-weekly basis – either pay employees more than intended, or face a possible wage payment claim.

Read the full post here.

.
Lexblog