Oil and Natural Gas Production Subject to New Air Rules
On April 17, 2012, the EPA issued new rules targeting potential emissions associated with hydraulically fractured wells. Other activities at upstream and midstream facilities are also impacted by the new rules. To learn more about the new requirements to reduce emissions from the oil and natural gas production sector, please click here to read the Alert published by the Environmental and Energy and Natural Resources Client Service Group on May 1, 2012.
Medical Marijuana: Arizona Law and the Americans with Disabilities Act
While employers have implemented policies to comply with Arizona’s medical marijuana laws, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that could exclude employees who use medical marijuana from protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. To read more about the ruling and the context of the issue considered by the Court, please click here to read the Alert published by the Labor and Employment Client Service Group on May 30, 2012.
Department of Labor Issues Further Fee Disclosure Guidance
On May 7, 2012, the Department of Labor issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02, consisting of 38 questions and answers that clarify some of the issues raised since the issuance of final regulations on participant fee disclosures with respect to designated investment alternatives in individual account plans. For a discussion of the issues covered, please click here to read the alert published by the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Client Service Group on May 29, 2012.
California Supreme Court Attempts to Clarify Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees in Wage and Hour Claims
On April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Kirby v. Imroos Fire Protection, a wage and hour matter that had been making its way through the court system since 2007. In the ruling, the Court attempted to clarify and limit a prevailing party’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees for bringing certain types of wage and hour claims; however, its failure to address a glaring inconsistency with another law essentially nullifies the holding. To read more about the ruling and how it further muddies the waters as to whether any party will receive fees for break claims, please click here for the Alert published by the Labor and Employment Client Service Group on May 8, 20012.