Artificial intelligence continues revolutionizing HR and talent acquisition, promising efficiency and scalability in hiring processes. However, as a recent lawsuit against Workday shows, automation does not absolve employers or their vendors of compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
In Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-770, a California federal judge allowed a collective action age discrimination lawsuit

Contractual limitations periods provide parties on both sides of an agreement certainty regarding the filing of a potential action. But many employers do not know that they may include such contractual limitations periods in their employment applications and agreements. Those contractual limitations periods can be effective in limiting exposure for potential claims.
In, King v.

Applicable large employers (“ALEs”) are subject to reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). To comply with the reporting requirements, an ALE must file a Form 1095-C with the IRS reporting certain information about the ALE’s offer of coverage to each full-time employee, identifying the employee, spouse, and dependents who are covered under

A Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) is a long-standing HR tool for managing underperforming employees. Employers often use a PIP to document deficiencies and outline specific goals the underperforming employee must reach within a specific timeframe.
While PIPs sound good in theory, they have recently come under criticism from employees, HR professionals, and even employment lawyers.

Section 305 of SECURE 2.0 added rules for self-correcting a new category of retirement plan errors under the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“ECPRS”).   Specifically, Section 305 allows an “eligible inadvertent failure” to be self-corrected at any time, even if the error is considered a “significant” operational error under EPCRS. Section 305 provides that the

Retirement plan administration mistakes require difficult conversations with participants, especially when the mistake involves an overpayment.  Changes in the law, specifically, SECURE 2.0 and IRS Notice 2024-77, give plan fiduciaries additional flexibility when addressing overpayments.
Overpayment of Matching Contributions
Consider the case of a 401(k) plan with an employer matching contribution on the first 6%

As we approach the holiday season, many employers consider giving employees a gift as a token of appreciation.  What employers may not consider is whether those gifts create taxable income to employees.
Although gifts are generally not taxable to the recipient, this general rule does not apply to gifts given by an employer to an

In employment discrimination cases, the parties often retain experts to opine about various aspects of the case. An expert may provide, for example, insight as to job performance issues or, in many instances, determine the nature and scope of an employee’s alleged damages. But can an expert determine if the employer’s conduct constituted “discrimination”? The