If you do not currently work with a PEO Company that keeps you informed on the latest workplace regulations, you may not be aware that there are questions that should not be asked during a job interview. Asking these questions can make your company liable in a discrimination lawsuit. And those risks are real.

Wednesday, 03 August 2016 14:21

How You Can Compete for Top Recruits

Written by

Recruiting top talents requires going deeper than visiting a few college campuses and posting a job ad. Employers should take a hard look at their interview process in order to attract the right employees that will not only have talent but will also fit your company culture.

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued the new and final regulations to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), with an effective date of December 1, 2016. This means that we must quickly review employees' overtime status to determine whether they fall within the exempt or nonexempt categories of the FLSA's new regulations.

Monday, 06 October 2014 18:00

Colorado Affirmation Form Update

Written by

According the Colorado Division of Labor there is an updated Colorado Affirmation form to help ensure employees are legally eligible to work for both public and private businesses. You will need to update your pre-employment packet to include an updated form for Colorado Affirmation. This form is to fulfill the Employment Verification Law requirements in addition to the I-9. The previously used form expired on October 1, 2014. This is not a new document for your employment packet, just an updated version. This Colorado Affirmation form must be completed within 20 days of hire. 

For a copy of the Colorado Affirmation form please click here.

For a complete copy of the pre-employee application packet with the updated form click here

For more information about the Affirmation Form please visit

For further assistance or more information, please contact StaffScapes, Inc. at 303-466-7864 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sunday, 06 January 2008 17:00

Victory for Employers in City of San Francisco

Written by

Employer Mandated Healthcare Struck Down By Courts

On December 26, 2007, Federal Judge Jeffrey White awarded summary judgment to the Golden Gate Restaurant Association in its challenge of the City of San Francisco Employer Mandate for Healthcare. In striking down the law, which was scheduled to go into effect yesterday, the court cited conflicts with ERISA which preempt the city ordinance.

The ordinance would have created a new city-run “Healthy San Francisco” program to provide comprehensive health benefits to San Francisco’s uninsured, including inpatient and outpatient hospital treatment, primary and preventive care, diagnostic and radiological care, mental health treatment, and prescription drug benefits. However, the ordinance also would have imposed a minimum spending requirement on medium and large employers in San Francisco, requiring medium businesses (those with 20-99 employees) to spend $1.17 per hour per employee, and requiring large businesses (those with 100 or more employees) to spend $1.76 per hour. The ordinance would have allowed employers   to satisfy this requirement  either by paying into plans of their own, or by paying the City so that it could provide the employees with care through its new program. 

In issuing his decision, Judge White stated, “The Ordinance’s health care expenditure requirements are preempted because they have an impermissible connection with employee welfare benefit plans. By mandating employee health benefit structures and administration, those requirements interfere with preserving employer autonomy over whether and how to provide employee health coverage, and ensuring uniform national regulation of such coverage. The Ordinance’s provisions also make unlawful reference to benefit plans because they refer to, are designed to act immediately upon, and cannot operate successfully without the existence of employee welfare benefit plans.”

 The city has appealed the decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  denied the city's request for an immediate stay of the lower court decision pending appeal.  The appellate court is scheduled to hear oral arguments later this week.

Page 1 of 2