New answers tagged

2

Generally, employment law is not really up to date with the reality of remote work. But it typically follows the employee, not the employer. So a California company can't hire an employee in Germany unless the company is set up in Germany under German law to do so. In particular, it would have to comply with German laws regarding working conditions, as ...


2

I wanted to know if he has a case? At first glance that seems unlikely. However, knowing the exact phrases in that conversation (as in "his character and our personal interactions with him") is crucial because subtleties in the language can make the difference between a statement of opinion and a [false] statement of fact. Only false statements of fact are ...


2

No As a 16 year old you do not need a Child Work Permit - these are required for "[a] minor under 16 years of age". Notwithstanding, minor's contracts can be classified as valid, voidable or void. There are two types of valid contracts: Contracts for "necessaries", and Employment, apprenticeship and training contracts. Your employment contract is binding ...


3

Probably not An employee is someone that the employer "suffers or permits to work" - moderators would appear to be caught by this. There are specific exemptions carved out in the public and not-for-profit sectors where they "a) work toward public service, religious or humanitarian objectives; b) not expect or receive compensation for services; and c) not ...


3

It's unlikely that you can legally force an employer to give you a physical pay check. Hence you should explore how you can attain your goal with negotiations or workarounds. Since it's not entirely clear what you specific objection is, we can only speculate. Here are some ideas. Most businesses prefer direct deposits because it's faster, cheaper, safer and ...


0

The 1st Amendment has never been held to require a private entity to positively support people's religious convictions. Absent proof of discriminatory intent, i.e. they targeted you with the policy, or a local law requiring reasonable accommodation, a suit would be pointless. It's regrettable you are put in this position, but there is little legal recourse.


2

Under federal law, an employer may impose direct deposit as a condition of employment. The Electronic Funds Transfer Act at 15 USC 1693k only says that employers may not require an employee to have a bank account at a particular bank: No person may— (1) condition the extension of credit to a consumer on such consumer’s repayment by means of ...


1

There's nothing strange about the language. The fair market value of vested shares of restricted stock is included in the employee's income as compensation. This is what is known as compensation "in kind" and it results in what is also known as "phantom income" - the employee (or, on occasion, contractor) has to pay tax in cash even though it received no ...


0

The agreement she signed is a collateral contract to her employment contract and would be perfectly legal. On plain reading, if the period were for a 6 months and she stayed with the company for more than 6 months (on leave or otherwise) then she would not be required to repay. However, a court is not just interested in the plain reading of the document, ...


1

Get a lawyer. That employer is skating on very, very thin ice. You can’t have a non-compete agreement in Germany at all without the employer paying reasonable compensation. What is reasonable is decided by courts, but half your last regular salary is not “reasonable”. Especially if this would endanger your status of being allowed to work in Germany. If ...


1

RSUs are taxable when they vest, so there is indeed tax due and it's reasonable for your employer to collect estimated income taxes. See https://www.schwab.com/public/eac/resources/articles/rsu_facts.html It's a bit unusual for a private company to grant RSUs and let them vest before there is a way to turn the stock into cash. Typically private companies ...


0

One, any or all of these (plus possibly Canadian law) For a court or tribunal to have jurisdiction there must be some nexus between the dispute and the jurisdiction of that court or tribunal. Further, the jurisdiction must not be excluded, for example, a tribunal established for resolving family law matters is not going to have jurisdiction here. As the ...


1

I am not aware of Australian case law regarding this, but I will outline the rationale I would present for judicial interpretation of the [statutory?] language. None of the bullet points in your question requires interpretation of (iii): in each case, the total amount of hours in a week exceeds 38, thereby triggering the application of (i). But I gather ...


Top 50 recent answers are included