• The use of options – do employees care anymore?
• Differences between ISO’s and NQSO’s
• What are some of the issues when an individual pays AMT, but then has the options go underwater?
• What can employers do to help employees who are holding underwater options? (repricing, additional grants, restricted stock, deferred compensation)
• What are some of the factors companies need to consider in making decisions on ways to deal with underwater options? (i.e., investor concerns, dilution, earnings impact)
• What is deferred compensation? What are examples of types of deferred compensation? When is it preferable to use this versus equity-based awards?
• ISOs and employee stock purchase plans. What’s a disqualifying disposition? What should employers do about them? What is an employee stock purchase plan?
• What type of advice should HR be giving employees re 401(k)s? Should employees be worried about recent stock declines?
• Is there anything employers should consider when they have employees on foreign assignment – with options, deferred compensation, 401(k) plans?

EEO News provides employment law case headlines on EEO cases it believes are significant as well as an informative workplace law radio show. EEO News is not a substitute for legal research or an employment lawyer. EEOnews.com does not provide legal advice. To learn more about employment and labor laws, please contact an employment lawyer to answer your EEO legal questions.

Mr. Lippman and Mr. Michelson are partners in the law firm of Lippman, Michelson & Associates, specializing in ADA, EEOC and OSHA ergonomic compliance law. Their offices are located in Texas, California, and Tennessee.

Mrs. Cratchit, RN – Hired by NurseTemps, Inc. to advise customers pricked by wreaths or who suffer from allergic reactions to pine needles. Received W-2 from NurseTemps. Frequently, she sees customers who storm Ebenezer Scrooge Christmas Wreath Co.’s office with bloody fingers. She works 70+ hours a week and is paid $29,000 per year. Mrs. Cratchit believes she is entitled to overtime for working in excess of 8 hours in a day. She worked with Ebenezer Scrooge Christmas Wreath Co. for 8 years.

Ebenezer’s Nephew, Delivery Person – Delivers Christmas Wreaths to homes in the Tri-State Region around New York City. Works 100+ hours per week. He uses the Company’s minivan to make the deliveries. He is paid a weekly salary of $1,000. He receives a 1099.

Bob Cratchit, Bookkeeper – Paid annual salary of $20,000 for the past 15 years. December 25, 2000, Cratchit was promoted to Vice President of Marketing in order to develop and implement a new marketing scheme. As VP, he earns $35 per hour. He has been paid $78,000 to date in 2001. He has worked an average of 80 hours per week for the past 16 years.

Belle, Admin Ass’t – Scrooge’s former girlfriend has worked as his administrative assistant for the past 10 years. She earns $400 per week. She works about 60 hours a week. Belle receives an extra $1 per hour when she works after 10 p.m. She is paid a weekend bonus of $10 whenever she is required to work on the weekend.
Week ending 12/24/2000: Belle worked 60 hours and earned $350. ($300 in salary + $20 for working after 10 p.m. + $10 for working on the weekend + a $20 Christmas bonus).

Tiny Tim, Laborer – Made Christmas wreaths in his home until December 24, 2000. Tim worked approximately 95 hours a week. He was paid $6 per hour. On December 25, 2000, he was promoted to a sales position. He is now paid on a commission basis to visit hospitals and sell wreaths.

Big Tim, Web Developer – Tiny Tim’s cousin. Works 75 hours a week for the first 2 weeks of each month. He is paid $60/hour. He attends school the second half of each month. He handles the Company’s e-commerce. He is paid cash and receives no W-2 or 1099.

A co-worker’s repeated stares may be enough to constitute a sexually hostile working environment according to an appellate court in California (Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.) Despite the employer’s order to stay away from Birschtein, the co-worker continued to sit at a distance and stare at her for as long as five to ten minutes at a time. The court ruled that the employer’s failure to stop the staring may be seen as a failure to prevent discriminatory harassment.