Free Consultation | No Win No Fees


We pride ourselves on responding rapidly to all employee inquiries. Disclaimer. Privacy Policy. 

Template Pages



“Class Counsel displayed skills beyond those that might be expected of attorneys of comparable expertise or experience.”

- Honorable Jeffrey Hamilton, Jr.


“The stipulated class has been adequately represented by competent class counsel from the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.”

- Honorable Nancy W. Stock


“Class counsel has extensive experience in class action matters.”

- Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez


“If You Feel You’re Being Cheated By You’re Current Or Former  Employer This Is Law Firm For You. I Submitted An Email Too There Website  And Within A Few Short Hours I Got A Response… Its Nice To Know In Theses Troubling Times There’s A Law Firm Like Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik That Will Stick Up For The Rights Of The Blue Collar Worker. Thanks Again ”


- David LaRue


“My experience dealing with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik was fantastic. They understood the nature of my complaint, they had experience in dealing with similar cases and were extremely helpful and quick to respond throughout the process. I would not have wanted to go through this without having someone like AJ Bhowmik on my side.”


- Former Client DWalsh


“When I first emailed Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, I did not expect a response that same day… They have been extremely responsive to my complaint and is moving forward in a timely manner.”


- Former Client MartinH


This area does not yet contain any content.

Popular, But Risky Method of Avoiding Obamacare: Cutting Hours 

The employer mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or what most are referring to as Obamacare has been delayed until 2015, but many companies are already searching for ways to get around the new requirements. One of the most popular techniques companies are putting in place is purposefully cutting hours to circumvent the mandate. It’s risky and it could land stick those who try it with some tough legal issues.

As of the first of the year in 2015, employers with 50+ full time (or full time equivalent) employees will be required to provide health coverage to those employees. For this mandate full time is defined as workers who put in 30 or more hours/week. Employers who don’t provide the required coverage will be required to pay $2,000/year per full time employee. The mandate excludes the first 30 employees and is dependent upon at least one employee using the federal premium tax credits to purchase insurance through the Marketplace. Employers who try to get around the mandate by providing coverage that is not “affordable” will also incur penalties.

Companies who have decided to cut employee hours in order to avoid the mandate include Subway, Forever 21, Regal Entertainment Group, etc.) These groups plan to cut their employees hours to less than 30 hours/week. This will ensure they do not meet the 50 full time employee mark or at least drastically reduce the number of employees that would qualify under the current definitions as set down in the ACA.

While it may seem like a smart move, companies embracing such tactics may be doing more than cutting corners. They may be breaking the law. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) includes an often overlooked provision (Section 510) that makes it illegal for employers to make employment decisions solely in order to prevent an employee from obtaining or retaining benefits.  Experts are speculating on the financial damage that could be on the horizon for companies who try to avoid the ACA mandate by cutting employee hours due to potential class action lawsuits down the road. Employers at the greatest risk will most likely be those who arranged employment in order to remove benefits/coverage from employees who previously qualified.

In addition to the potential legal issues due to Section 510 and the popular trend to cut hours to avoid the mandate coming in 2015, companies also need to consider their work force’s demographics. Companies who cut back hours on older workers could leave themselves open to age discrimination lawsuits. Company brands could see notable damage due to their maneuvering and it could decrease their chances of recruiting top notch employees in future.

Employers are encouraged to steer clear of the temptation to cut hours in order to avoid the employer mandate. There are better ways to deal with the upcoming changes. Some will find that they will be best served by filling their work force with contractors employed by staffing services. In this instance, the staffing service will be responsible for ACA compliance. This will avoid the hassle of meeting requirements of the new mandates as well as meeting the expectations of quality workers. They’ll still receive quality benefits packages; it will just be through the staffing service.

We’re not trying to sell anyone on the line that Obamacare isn’t an issue. As trusted employment experts, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is available to help you navigate the upcoming changes. 


Labor Board: Northwestern University Football Players Can Unionize

As of Wednesday, and according to the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago, football players are employees. For the players at Northwestern University this is good news because they can now unionize. The players petitioned in order to increase their bargaining power in the college sports arena. The ruling could change the landscape of the NCAA. In response to the petition, Northwestern University claimed that their players are not employers, they are students.

The board’s decision that the players should be classified as employees was based on several factors:

·       Athletes at the university get “paid” in scholarships
·       They work between 20 and 50 hours/week
·       They generate millions of dollars of revenue for the university

Players claimed the reason behind their petition was to receive better medical coverage (including concussion testing), four-year scholarships and the potential for outright payment for athletic services.

Northwestern plans to appeal. Richard Epstein, labor law professor at New York University, said the ruling has “vast implications for the structure of the sport, if upheld.” Individuals opposing the board’s decision claim that while the reform issues players are looking to address may be appropriate, unionizing may not be the best method of achieving change in this instance because of the negative effect it could have on the success of Northwestern athletics. An appeal would likely take years to resolve.

The NCAA responded to the issue by saying that, while it wasn’t directly involved in the proceedings, it didn’t agree with the decision of the board and disagreed with the idea that student athletes should be classified as employees.

For up to date information on the issue or to discuss other current affairs related to employment status, wage issues, etc. contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today