In a decision that could impact a range of employers, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that companies must pay workers for the time it takes to change into protective clothing and safety gear, and to walk to and from their workstations, even if waiting time is involved. In a small victory for employers, the Court ruled that workers need not be compensated for the time spent waiting to first put on their protective gear (but they must be paid for any time spent waiting to remove it).

The unanimous opinion involved two consolidated cases (one concerning a meat packing plant in Washington state and the other a chicken processing facility in Maine) raising the same issue of when compensable time starts for slaughterhouse workers who first must don special gear before walking to their work stations. One lower court had ruled that the workers must be paid from the moment they begin to don the protective gear until they remove it and the other court ruled that time spent walking to and from the workstation in the special gear did not require compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Effective July 1, 2005, Iowa employers can require new employees to sign up for direct deposit of their wages as a condition of hire. The new law, which amends the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act, Section 91A.3(3) and 91A.6 of the Iowa Code, also requires employers to give employees certain wage, hour and deduction information every pay period. A key twist to the new law is that "current employees" are exempted from being required to receive their pay via direct deposit, so once a "new hire" starts working, he/she becomes a "current employee" and can then choose to opt out of direct deposit.

Key components of the revised wage laws are as follows:

A New Jersey Court ruled that an employer may be held liable for damages as a result of providing an inaccurate and/or false employment reference for a former employee. The case outlined when an employer is liable in these circumstances.

The Court ruled that an employer could be held liable for "negligent misrepresentation" of a former employee’s work history if:

1. the inquiring party clearly identifies the nature of the inquiry;

2. the employer voluntarily decides to respond to the inquiry, and thereafter unreasonably provides false or inaccurate information;

3. the person providing the inaccurate information is acting within the scope of his/her employment;

4. the recipient of the incorrect information relies on its accuracy to support an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and

5. plaintiff suffers quantifiable damages proximately caused by the negligent misrepresentation.