Blog

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become ubiquitous across all aspects of the workplace. However, while AI can certainly be a value-add, it comes with a variety of legal concerns including concerns about the confidentiality of data and communications, and questions about ownership rights.

On May 20, 2024, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law Bill H.659 (the “Bill”), amending certain sections of the Vermont Captive Insurance Act, 8 V.S.A. § 6001 et seq. (the “Captive Act” or “Act”), to better reflect current industry practices and eliminate unnecessary redundancies. The amendments become effective July 1, 2024.

Even the most seasoned organizational leaders and human resources teams should consider involving legal counsel to assist with complaints and allegations of workplace misconduct. Legal counsel can assist with workplace investigations in a variety of ways, from advising on the necessary steps to take to becoming directly involved and even conducting the investigation on behalf of the employer. It may even be best to let counsel conduct the investigation to ensure thoroughness and impartiality.

On April 23, 2024, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor published a final rule updating these exemptions by increasing the minimum salary requirements. Beginning on July 1, 2024, the minimum annual salary to qualify for the EAP exemption will increase from $35,568 to $43,888; on January 1, 2025, it will increase to $58,656. For highly compensated employees, the minimum annual salary will increase on July 1, 2024 from $107,432 to $132,964; on January 1, 2025, it will increase to $151,164.

I regularly advise community association executive boards (often called boards of directors) and property managers that the governing documents – the declaration, bylaws and rules - should be regularly reviewed to ensure that they conform to current law. Here are some little known facts that HOA Boards should know.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that a job transfer could serve as the basis of a discrimination claim under Title VII, without a showing of “significant” harm. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, the Court rejected a significant harm requirement to bring such a claim, indicating that the claimant need only show some injury in their employment.