Week In Review

August 17, 2015

Court decision on F-1 work authorization poses headaches for employers
Last week, a federal judge invalidated a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule from 2008 that allowed highly skilled individuals educated at U.S. colleges and universities to remain in the U.S. to work after completing their education. The decision takes effect on February 12, 2016. Unless DHS passes a new rule that complies with notice and comment requirements, this decision will result in F-1 STEM work authorizations not being valid on February 12, 2016. Additionally, F-1 students will only be permitted to apply for work authorization while still in school; post- graduation applications will be no longer available.

Georgia allows use of payroll card accounts
Georgia law now allows employers to use a payroll card account to pay wages to employees.
Employers that elect to make wage and salary payments by using credit to a payroll card account must provide employees with the following. First, a written explanation of any fees associated with the payroll card account offered to the employee. Second, the ability to opt out of receiving such payments as credit to a payroll card account by submitting in writing a request for a check. Third, the ability to opt out of receiving such payments as credit to a payroll card account by providing the proper designation and authorization for an electronic credit transfer.

West Virginia amends separation payment rule
West Virginia has amended the rule for payment of wages to separated employees. Employers are now required to pay the employee's wages due for work that the employee performed prior to the separation of employment on or before the next regular payday. If the next regular payday is less than four business days after the date of separation, final wages must be paid no later than the following regular payday. Bonuses, and other fringe benefits of employment, are not considered wages for purposes of this change.

EEOC alleges employer violated ADEA when it refused to hire 58-year-old
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against an Indiana hand tool manufacturing company. The EEOC claims the Employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by rejecting a 58-year-old applicant when it learned that he was beyond the company's ideal age range of 45-52. The applicant was seeking an executive position. The Employer selected the applicant out of a pool applying for its senior vice president of sales position to participate in an initial, email-based interview. In addition to questions about the applicant’s experience and willingness to relocate, the Employer asked him whether he was within its ideal age range of 45-52. When the Employer learned that the applicant was older than its ideal age range, the company purportedly refused to hire him.

SESCO recommends that clients review all applicable policy and practices to ensure compliance. For assistance, contact us at 423-764-4127 or by email at sesco@sescomgt.com