Monthly Archives: September 2017


These are some of the key providers who need to be aware of the safety environment. (These are some of the highlights employers should know about from the Safer Workplace Act.):

  • Safe workplace public policy is much better than the right to privacy. (The public policy of a safer workplace outweighs the right to privacy if you follow the Act.)
  • If a employer follows the lawsuit, it may legally prove the presence of drugs and drugs as a problem of employment. (If done in accordance with the Act, it may lawfully test employees and applicants for the presence of drugs and alcohol as a condition of employment or hiring.)
  • Do you have some masters that are covered? Employment insurance and the exception of public employers. (Employers with one or more full-time employees are covered, with the exceptions which include public employers.)
  • The patrons had a political writing. (Employers must have a written policy.) Drug and alcoholic methods should be distribute to employees and used by the candidates. (The drug and alcohol testing policy must be distributed to employees and made available to applicants.)
  • Before the Act, the patrons may conduct their tests only if they had a reason, good faith, seven complaints of drug use or the employee was in a sensitive sense of rescue. (Before the Act, employers could conduct drug testing only if it had a reasonable, good faith, objective suspicion of drug usage or the employee was in a safety sensitive position.) Now, staff can try for a number of reasons with the protection and experience of using drugs, drug abuse, to look at the harm to the business and the thief, and to the safety of the customer, and the product. (Now, employers may test for many reasons including deterrence and detection of illicit drug use, abuse of alcohol, to investigate workplace accidents and theft, customer safety, and productivity.)
  • The boss will be able to select the type of sample that could start the first job. (Employers may decide the type of sample to collect for initial testing.) The employers must be at risk to provide information about the use of acute or re-search. Employees must be given a chance to voluntarily provide information regarding their current or recent drug use.)
  • Prior to any event activity, the result must be confirmed by other tests. (Before any adverse employment action is taken, the result must be confirmed by another test.) Employees have the right to differentiate the initial results from compensating for the proven lakes at their expense. (Employees have the right to challenge the initial results by having their split sample tested at their own expense.)
  • Although an employer who has to undergo drug testing under another statute, you must follow these laws. (If you are an employer obligated to perform drug testing under another statute, you must still follow these laws.)
  • If you are entrusted with the document, you may not explain to request a positive positive confirmation result or a refusal to propose. (If you are in compliance with the Act, you cannot be sued for acting upon a confirmed positive test result or a refusal to submit to testing.) There is no reason for conduct for conduct related to drug abuse or alcohol abuse. (No cause of action exists for actions taken in relation to a false negative drug or alcohol test.) Behavior associated with a secret, he did not reject the case or if the employer for the employee. (Confidentiality is waived by the employee if he sues his employer for conduct relating to the Act.)
  • There is an environment where a worker can lose employment unemployment and employee compensation benefits, so consult your lawyer for help. (There are circumstances under which an employee may forfeit unemployment and workers’ compensation benefits, so consult your lawyer for assistance.) Will be obligated to inform employees that it is a state of employment to avoid and to mention work or to work with the presence of drugs or alcohol in their bodies. (The policy must inform employees that it is a condition of employment to refrain from reporting to work or working with the presence of drugs or alcohol in their bodies.)
  • After the accident, a drug-related injury investigation is covered by the employee’s compensation laws and the blood test requires that the employee finds work. (Post-accident drug testing is covered by workers’ compensation law and requires a blood test to determine whether the employee was intoxicated.)
  • Workers must teach alcohol and drug users and train their leaders. (Employers must educate their employees on the drug and alcohol testing policies and train their supervisors, too.)

In my opinion, the proper act of security was a sign of West Virginia’s labor force. (In my view, the Safer Workplace Act is a boon to West Virginia employers.) For a more complete explanation of the more secure workplace, please visit this blog. (For a more complete explanation of the Safer Workplace Act, check out this link to our blog.)


A pension plan participant’s challenge to his benefit amount was recently struck down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court acknowledged that retirement plans are complex documents comprised of hundreds of pages, appendices, and “peculiarities.”  The issue on appeal before the court was examining whether the terms of the plan were merely complex or ambiguous. Read More »


On July 26, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) published a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting public comment on the Fair Labor Standard Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime requirements for certain executive, administrative, outside sales, and computer employees. The DOL will likely use the feedback it receives to assist with formulating a proposal to revise the overtime regulations.  Read More »


During the 2016 Regular Session of the West Virginia Legislature, Senate Bill 1 – otherwise known as the “West Virginia Workplace Freedom Act” – became law after that Legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto on February 12, 2016.  Or so everyone thought.  A number of labor organizations sought an injunction prohibiting the law’s enforcement just four days before the Workplace Freedom Act took effect on July 1, 2016, with a filing in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. Read More »


On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Advocate Health Care Network, et al. v. Stapleton et al., 581 U.S. ___ (2017), answered whether a church must have originally established an employee benefit plan for it to qualify as an exempted “church plan” under ERISA, to which the Supreme Court answered, no.  The Supreme Court held that “a plan maintained by a ‘principal purpose organization’ qualifies as a ‘church plan,’ regardless of who established it.” Read More »