Compliance Stuff

This month’s  Friday Five  covers recent decisions on credibility pertaining to long COVID symptoms, weighing of disability evidence, overpayment accounting, preemption of state law claims, and a motion to compel discovery on financial incentives and other information. District of Vermont grants insurer’s motion for judgment on the record in long COVID case finding the plaintiff was not credible.   Plaintiff was terminated from his engineering position because “his engagement ended with his client.”   He submitted a claim for short-term disability (“STD”) and long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits, alleging inability to work due to symptoms of long COVID that pre-dated his termination .  The District of Vermont did not reach the question of whether the  de novo  or arbitrary and capricious standard applied because it found the plaintiff’s claim did not survive even under the broader  de novo  standard, due in part to the plaintiff’s lack ...

At MVA, we often help clients who are victims of cyber incidents where threat actors take data and threaten to release it unless they are paid. With ransomware attacks and data exfiltration common, companies face mounting pressure to assess litigation risk after a breach, and understanding the legal landscape is critical. Recent rulings from both federal and state courts underscore a key point: not every breach translates into standing for every affected individual. In our 2017  DataPoints  piece on  Beck v. McDonald , we explored how the Fourth Circuit set a reasonable bar for standing in data breach cases. That precedent continues to shape outcomes today, including a recent decision from the Fourth Circuit and a November 18 th  decision from a state court of appeals reinforcing the principle that speculative harm is not enough for standing. The Fourth Circuit in  Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Co.  and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in  Bauer v. Fincan...

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently provided significant guidance resolving uncertainty about the scope of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act’s (WFEA) prohibition against discrimination based on an employee’s or applicant’s arrest record. The court held that “arrest record” includes noncriminal offenses, such as municipal theft, reversing the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. As a result, adverse employment actions based on an individual’s arrest record for a civil offense may now form the basis of a claim of unlawful discrimination. Quick Hits The Wisconsin Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “any … other offense” in the WFEA to include noncriminal offenses. The court’s interpretation is the final chapter in extended, seesaw litigation resulting from a school district’s decision to fire two employees who allegedly stole scrap metal from the district, pocketing the money they received from recycling the stolen material. The district elected to dismiss the brothers after they were cited...

  Takeaways: The appeals court held that employees working away from home overnight are entitled to compensation for travel time that occurs during their regular working hours, and the travel time must also be counted toward overtime pay calculations. The decision is an important reminder that different FLSA rules apply to travel time compensation when overnight stays are required. Employers need to carefully consider the nature of their employees’ travel and work arrangements to ensure FLSA compliance. Related link:  Walters v. Professional Labor Group, LLC  Employees who work away from home overnight on assignments lasting several days or weeks are entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for time spent traveling to such assignments when the travel occurs during their regular working hours , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled.  Walters v. Professional Labor Group, LLC ,  No. 23-3346 (Oct. 30, 2024). Their tra...