Employer Faces $2M FLSA Lawsuit For Alleged Worker Misclassification

December 26, 2013

Health Care Reform Adds Fuel To Enforcement Fire

Employers must ensure they can defend their treatment of workers as as independent contractors or otherwise exempt from wage and hour and overtime requirements and take other steps to manage wage and hour risks that can arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other laws to when caught misclassifying workers.  That’s the clear message the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) is sending to employers by filing lawsuits against employers like the one it recently announced against Wang’s Partner Inc., doing business as Hibachi Grill and Supreme Buffet in Jonesboro, and its owner, Shu Wang, to recover $1,997,726 in back wages and liquidated damages for 84 employees.

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. The requirements generally apply to any workers that the employer who receives its services cannot prove is not its common law employee or an exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA.  In general, “hours worked” includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal work activity to the end of the last principal activity of the workday. Additionally, the law requires that accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment be maintained. These requirements generally apply for all workers who the facts and circumstances reflect are common law employees and otherwise do not qualify as exempt employees under the FLSA.  Violations of these requirements can result significant backpay and other damage awards to private plaintiffs, backpay and penalties assessments or settlements from Labor Department suits, and, if the violation is found willful, criminal liability.

Wang’s Partner Inc. Suit

The lawsuit against Want’s Partner Inc. shows employers the importance of avoiding improperly classifying workers as independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA. Employers that inappropriately classify workers as independent contractors often fail to maintain appropriate time and other records, pay minimum wage and overtime and violate other FLSA requirements.  In general, a business receiving services of a worker generally bears the burden of providing that the worker is not its common law employee under the applicable facts and circumstances test applicable under the FLSA.

As in many other enforcement areas, the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division in recent years has stepped up its scrutiny of employer relationships with workers treated as independent contractors.  The Labor Department and many other agencies increasingly view the misclassification of workers as something other than employees, such as independent contractors, as a serious problem for affected employees, employers and to the entire economy.  According to the Labor Department, misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance and other rights.  The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. To address these and other concerns, the Labor Department has joined other agencies like the Internal Revenue Service increasingly is challenging employers’ treatment of workers as exempt from FLSA and other legal obligations as independent contractors or otherwise.

The lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia against Wang’s Partner, Inc. illustrates this trend.  One of the growing number of lawsuits and other enforcement actions resulting from this trend, the suit shows the significant exposures that an employer risks by misclassifying workers as independent contractors or otherwise exempt from the FLSA. The Labor Department says an investigation revealed that Wang’s Partner Inc. misclassified workers as independent contractors and engaged in numerous violations of the FLSA.  The Labor Department seeks $1,997,726 in back wages and liquidated damages for 84 employees.

The Labor Department says investigators from the division’s Atlanta district office found that the employer misclassified servers as independent contractors, failed to pay servers and kitchen staff at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and failed to pay overtime compensation at time and one-half employees’ regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 in a work week. Additionally, the employer did not maintain accurate records of hours worked and wages paid.

In announcing the Wang’s Partner Inc. lawsuit, the Labor Department warned employers against similar misclassification of workers.  “The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to ensuring that all workers receive the wages to which they are legally entitled,” said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “We will not stand by while employers use business models that hurt workers, their families and law-abiding employers. This lawsuit illustrates that the department will use every enforcement tool necessary to resolve cases where employees are unlawfully treated as independent contractors, and vulnerable workers are not paid the minimum wage.”

 FLSA Violations Generally Costly;  Enforcement Rising

The Labor Department’s prosecutions against employers arising from misclassification of workers document the Labor Department is acting in accordance with this warning.  In recent years, misclassification of workers increasingly has become an element in its FLSA and other enforcement actions.  According to the Labor Department, misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance and other rights.  The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. To address these and other concerns, the Labor Department has joined other agencies like the Internal Revenue Service increasingly is challenging employers’ treatment of workers as exempt from FLSA and other legal obligations as independent contractors or otherwise.Whether due to mischaracterization of workers as independent contractors or as common law employees that qualify as exempt under the FLSA rules, the Labor Department increasingly is acting on its promise to go after employers that violate the FLSA based on worker misclassifications.

In 2012, for instance, First Republic Bank paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.  The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012.

The settlement came after an investigation by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division found that the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

In announcing the settlement with First Republic Bank, the Labor Department warned employers to confirm the appropriateness of their classification of workers.  “It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

The Wang’s Partner Inc and First Republic Bank enforcement actions are not unique.  The Labor Department and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers.  Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements.  See e.g.,  Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For EmployersQuest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay

In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules,  the Labor Department is using  smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers.    As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the  Labor Department and private litigation.

Health Care Reform Adds Risks, Fuels More Enforcement

The rollout of new health benefit mandates as part of the sweeping reforms enacted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is further expanding the liability of misclassification and the risk of enforcement against employers.

Among other things, the employer mandates of ACA, now delayed until 2015, generally will require employers of 50 or more full-time employees either to provide health coverage meeting the requirements of ACA or pay the “employer penalty” established under Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H.  While the rule now is delayed until 2015, the employment data for 2014 will be used to determine what employees that an employer must take into account for purposes of this rule.  ACA generally relies on the common law employment tests used under the FLSA to make this determination.  It also requires employers provide other rights to workers who are considered common law employees under these rules.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

 To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws.  Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

  • Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
  • Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
  • Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
  • Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
  • If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
  • Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
  • Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
  • Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before starting their risk assessment and assess risks and claims within the scope of attorney-client privilege to help protect the ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections to help shelter conversations or certain other sensitive risk activities from discovery under the rules of evidence.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, or other federal or state agencies or other private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, compliance,  employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit  and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters.   She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in exploring other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ tools, products, training and other resources here and reading some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ human resources news here including the following:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS.  ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2012 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C.  Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™  All other rights reserved.


Affordable Care Act Requires Proper Integration of HRAs, HFSAs, & Certain Other Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

September 24, 2013

Employers using health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health flexible spending plans (HFSAs) or other employer payment plan arrangements under which the employer provides a fixed defined contribution from the employer to employees to use to purchase individual or group health insurance should have those arrangements reviewed for compliance with the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) annual limit and preventive care rules as interpreted by the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health & Human Service.

The Internal Revenue Service and the Employee Benefit Security Administration construe ACA as requiring that these arrangements be properly integrated with health insurance coverage that otherwise complies with the Affordable Care Act’s annual limit and preventive care rules to avoid violating ACA in recent guidance published in IRS Notice 2013-54 and EBSA Technical Release No. 2013-04.

Employers that use HRAs, HFSAs, or other employer defined contribution style arrangements to reimburse employees for individual or group insurance coverage should review their arrangements to ensure that they are properly designed to comply with ACA’s annual limit, preventive care and other mandates.

For Help or More Information

 If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.


Review Benefit Plan, FLMA & Other Family-Related Policies In Light Of Labor Department Same-Sex Marriage Guidance

September 24, 2013

Employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plan fiduciaries, and their advisors and service providers should review and update their health and employee benefit plan’s definitions of “spouse,” “marriage” and “dependent” in light of new guidance from the Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD) guidance under the Family & Medical Leave Act and the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) guidance under the under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on the effect of the Supreme Court’s finding of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on their family leave and employee benefit plan obligations to employees involved in same-sex domestic partnership relationships When doing so, employers and employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators also should keep in mind that the Defense of Marriage Act ruling is only one of a number of recent developments fueling an evolution in the traditional concepts of marriage, dependent and family and their effect on employment and employee benefit policies and practices.  Accordingly, when reviewing these arrangements, employers and their benefit plans need to be reviewed and updated to keep abreast of and comply with these evolving practices and standards.

On June 26, 2013, the Windsor decision struck down the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples.

In Technical Release No. 2013-04 published on September 18, 2013, the EBSA states the Department plans to issue additional guidance in the coming months as it consults with the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to implement the  Winsor decision.  In the meanwhile, however, EBSA says that in general, the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in Title I of ERISA and in related department regulations should be read to include same-sex couples legally married in any state or foreign jurisdiction that recognizes such marriages, regardless of where they currently live.

The EBSA guidance follows the publication by the WHD of guidance on the effect of the Windsor decision on the family leave responsibilities of employers covered by the FMLA to employees involved in same-sex domestic partnership relationships in Fact Sheet #28F: Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act published by the WHD earlier in August.  In that guidance, WHD updated its definition of “spouse” for purposes of the FMLA to mean “husband or wife as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the state where the employee resides, including “common law” marriage and same-sex marriage.”

The Windsor decision and these new pieces of related guidance reflect the evolving nature of marriage and family increasingly incorporated into federal and state employment and employee benefit law.  While the Labor Department promises that additional guidance on the Defense of Marriage Act will be forthcoming the future, the new guidance makes clear that employers should review their existing employment and employee benefit plans in light of the Windsor decision and evolving precedent.  Employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators should not assume that existing definitions will have the intended effect or be compliant.  Rather, they should assess the existing language in light of the decision and the evolving guidance and make appropriate adjustments as necessary to ensure that their plans properly document the desired treatment in accordance with the evolving guidance and precedent.  In doing so, employers also should review other definitions of dependent, kin, family and related concepts to ensure they are up to date with the FMLA, the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act-related guidance and other current regulations.

For Help or More Information

 If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.


New Final FLSA Rule Gives Home Workers Minimum Wage, Overtime, Other FLSA Protections

September 18, 2013

Health care and other parties employing or otherwise engaging the services of home care workers should review and update their policies and  practices for scheduling, tracking hours worked and paying these workers to ensure that they comply by January 1, 2015 with a new final rule announced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division today (September 18, 2013). Today’s announcement of the regulatory changes means employers of home care workers can expect to see costs rise and also will join most other U.S. businesses that must worry about getting caught in minimum wage and overtime enforcement traps.

New Home Care Worker Rules Effective January 2015

Under the new final rule, the Labor Department extends the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime protections to most of the nation’s direct care workers who provide essential home care assistance to elderly people and people with illnesses, injuries, or disabilities beginning January 1, 2015.

The new final rule generally will require that the approximately two million home care workers such as home health aides, personal care aides, and certified nursing assistants will qualify for minimum wage and overtime.  Employers engaging these services also generally will need to keep records and comply with other FLSA requirements with respect to these workers as well.

In anticipation of the rollout of these new protections, the Labor Department is kicking off a public outreach campaign to educate home care workers and their employers about the rule change. The Department will be hosting five public webinars during the month of October and has created a new, dedicated web portal here with fact sheets, FAQs, interactive web tools, and other materials.

The Labor Department’s focus on home workers is an extension of its expanded regulation and enforcement efforts targeting a broad range of health care industry employers. Home care and other health industry employers should act to manage their rising exposures to minimum wage, overtime and other federal and state wage and hour law risks.

The impending change in the treatment of home care workers is part of a larger commitment by the Obama Administration to both expansion and enforcement of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions, and a specific program targeting employers in health care and related services industries.

The Obama Administration since taking office has conducted an aggressive campaign seeking to significantly increase the minimum wage under the FLSA and expand other protections.  Along with this proactive regulatory agenda, the Obama Administration also specifically is aggressively targeting health care and other caregiver businesses in its enforcement and audit activities. See, e.g. Home health care company in Dallas agrees to pay 80 nurses more than $92,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation; US Department of Labor secures nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 health care employees in Pine Bluff, Ark.; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward increasing FLSA compliance in New York’s health care industry; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward residential health care industry in Connecticut and Rhode Island to increase FLSA compliance; Partners HealthCare Systems agrees to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve U.S. Labor Department lawsuit; US Labor Dnda epartment sues Kentucky home health care provider to obtain more than $512,000 in back wages and damages for 22 employees; and Buffalo, Minn.-based home health care provider agrees to pay more than $150,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation.

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes health care and other employers to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability.   Because states all have their own wage and hour laws, employers may face liability under either or both laws.   Coupled with these and other enforcement efforts against health and other caregiver businesses, today’s announcement reflects enforcement risks will continue to rise for employers of home care workers.

In light of the proposed regulatory changes and demonstrated willingness of the Labor Department and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating these rules, health care and others employing home care workers should take well-documented steps to manage their risks.  These employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as evaluate and begin preparing to respond to the proposed modifications to these rules.  In both cases, employers of home care or other health care workers are encouraged to critically evaluate their classification or workers, both with respect to their status as employees versus contractor or leased employees, as well as their characterization as exempt versus non-exempt for wage and hour law purposes.  In addition, given the nature of the scheduled frequently worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

Of course, the home care and health care industry are not the only industries that need to worry about FLSA enforcement.   The Obama Administration is very aggressive in its enforcement of wage and hour and overtime laws generally.  For instance, First Republic Bank recently paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.  The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012.  The  settlement resulted from an investigation by the Labor Department that found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

While the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees, job titles do not determine the applicability of this or other FLSA exemptions. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.

Investigators found that First Republic Bank failed to consider the FLSA’s criteria that allow certain administrative and professional employees to be exempt from receiving overtime pay. In fact, the employees were entitled to overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week. Additionally, the bank failed to include bonus payments in nonexempt employees’ regular rates of pay when computing overtime compensation, in violation of the act. Record-keeping violations resulted from the employer’s failure to record the number of hours worked by the misclassified employees.

“It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

 FLSA Violations Generally Costly;  Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that employers that improperly treat workers as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requriements run a big risk.  The Labor Deprtment and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers.  Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements.  See e.g.,  Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For EmployersQuest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules,  the Labor Department is using  smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers.    As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the  Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

 To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws.  Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

  • Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
  • Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
  • Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
  • Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
  • If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
  • Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
  • Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
  • Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before starting their risk assessment and assess risks and claims within the scope of attorney-client privilege to help protect the ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections to help shelter conversations or certain other sensitive risk activities from discovery under the rules of evidence.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, or other federal or state agencies or other private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, compliance,  employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit  and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters.   She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in exploring other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ tools, products, training and other resources here and reading some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ human resources news here including the following:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS.  ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2012 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C.  Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™  All other rights reserved.


New DOL Guidance Makes Many Employers Rethink Giving FLSA 18B Exchange Notices

September 12, 2013

But Informal Agency Communications Suggest Don’t Be Too Quick To Assume No Consequences For Not Giving Notice

Employer and union group health plan sponsors and insurers of group and individual health plans who have struggled to complete and send the new employer notice (Exchange Notice) to employees required by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 18B by the October 1, 2013 deadline set by the U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) should contact their legal counsel to discuss the advisability of sending the Exchange Notice in light of a new informal guidance posted and distributed by EBSA yesterday (September 11, 2013) here titled “FAQ On Notice of Coverage Options.”  While many employers are reading the guidance in the new FAQ On Notice of Coverage Options as justification for not sending the notice, some EBSA representatives asked about the FAQ are cautioning that its provisions does not mean that there is no consequence for not sending an Exchange Notice.  In the face of these conflicting messages, employers under pressure to decide what Exchange Notice, if any to send by October 1, 2013 are more confused than ever.

Exchange Notice Requirement Under 18B Due October 1

To promote awareness among employees of the option scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014 under ACA to obtain health coverage through their state’s Marketplace, ACA amended the FLSA to require each FLSA-covered employer to give each employee a notice about the option to enroll in health coverage through a Marketplace and certain other information required by new Section 18B of the FLSA.

Although the Labor Department’s Wage & Hour Division usually interprets and administers the FLSA, EBSA as the agency with primary authority over health and other employee benefit plan regulation has taken the lead in interpreting and implementing FLSA Section 18B and issuing its implementing guidance.

In the EBSA interim guidance implementing Section 18B published in Technical Release 2013-02  and later communications and guidance prior to September 11, 2013, EBSA construes Section 18B as requiring that each employer covered by the FLSA “must” provide each employee at the time of hiring a written notice that meets the requirements of Section 18B to inform the employee:

  • Of the existence of the Marketplace (referred to in the statute as the Exchange) including a description of the services provided by the Marketplace, and the way the employee may contact the Marketplace to request assistance;
  • If the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace; and
  • If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

According to Technical Release 2013-02, an employer covered by the FLSA must give each employee notice under FLSA Section 18B whether the employer offers coverage, whether a particular employee qualifies for health coverage, if any, offered by the employer, or both.

Since publishing Technical Release 2013-02, EBSA also continuously told employers Section 18B “requires” their timely delivery of Exchange Notices in Model Notices that the Labor Department said it published to help employers prepare their Exchange Notices to comply with Section 18B’s requirement to provide the Exchange Notice.  See Model Notice For Employers Who Offer A Health Plan To Some or All Employees; Model Notice for Employers Who Do Not Offer A Health Plan; and COBRA Model Election Notice.   Indeed, the Model Notice For Employers Who Offer A Health Plan To Some or All Employees reinforced this message by specifically delineating the employer’s completion of the last portion of the form by the employer as “optional.”  Likewise, the responses shared by EBSA representatives in response to questions from employers and others about Section 18B and the Model Notices caused employers to believe that employers faced liability if they didn’t timely give an Exchange Notice to their employees by the October 1, 2013 deadline established by the Labor Department.

9/11/13 FAQ On Notice of Coverage Options Not Necessarily Mean No Consequence For Not Giving Notice

In the face of the previous zealous efforts by the EBSA telling employers about their obligations under Section 18B and urging them to comply, EBSA’s announcement in its September 11, 2013 FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options is creating a stir among employers and their advisors.  The FAQ on Notice of Coverage Option and the responses of EBSA representatives to questions about its interpretation and effect are confusing to say the least.

In the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options, the EBSA responds “No.” to the sole question addressed by the FAQ:  “Can an employer be fined for failing to provide employees with notice about the Affordable Care Act’s new Health Insurance Marketplace?”

EBSA representatives asked on the morning of September 12, 2013 about the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options stated that while employers “should” and EBSA “encourages” employers to in fact provide the Exchange Notices, EBSA does not view employers as subject to any penalty under “ERISA” (emphasis added) for not providing an Exchange Notice in accordance with Section 18B of the FLSA.

On the other hand, statements made by other EBSA officials responding to questions about the implications of the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options on the afternoon of September 12, 2013 raise concerns about reading the FAQ to mean that there is no consequence for an employer’s failure to provide the Exchange Notice.  These EBSA officials cautioned that employers should not interpret the statement in the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options there is no penalty under ERISA for not providing the Exchange Notice as meaning that there will be no adverse consequence if an employer does not provide an 18B Exchange Notice to its employees.  On the contrary, these EBSA officials caution that EBSA may view the Exchange Notice as a required disclosure about the plan, which could trigger audit or other enforcement activity.

EBSA representatives also are declining to comment on whether not providing the Exchange Notice might trigger penalties or other liabilities from other agencies.  When asked whether employers failing to provide an Exchange Notice could face penalties imposed by the Department of Labor Wage & Hour division under the FLSA, the Internal Revenue Service under Section 8928 or other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the Department of Health & Human Services under the Public Health Services Act, plaintiffs’ in a private cause of action brought under ERISA or the FLSA, or otherwise, EBSA representatives declined to comment about the potential implications of an employer’s failure to provide an Exchange Notice in accordance with FLSA Section 18B under laws administered or construed by other agencies. EBSA representatives instead referred these inquiries for response to the applicable enforcement agency.

The author has contacted and is awaiting reply from the Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division and the Departments of Treasury and Health & Human Services on their position, if any, on the potential liability of an employer for failing to timely deliver and Exchange Notice under the laws and rules subject to that agency’s jurisdiction.  Stay tuned for any future updates.

Consult With Qualified Counsel About What To Do & Document Analysis

The ambiguities created by the EBSA’s release of the FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options make it more necessary than ever that employers obtain documented advice from qualified legal counsel about responding to the requirements of Section 18B of the FLSA.

Because the preparation and distribution of an Exchange Notice by necessity involves an employer in making statements about its employee benefit plans, employers generally should use care to prudently craft each statement in any Exchange Notice to fit the actual terms of the applicable health plan to which it relates to manage fiduciary liability and other potential liabilities potentially arising from sending an inaccurate or misleading the Exchange Notice.  See Employers Beware! DOL-Model FLSA Section 18B Exchange Notice Requires Tailoring!   Furthermore, depending on the size of the employer’s workforce, an employer generally must invest significant time and money to prepare and distribute the Exchange Notice to its employees.

In light of the EBSA’s position in FAQ on Notice of Coverage Options, employers may want to consult experienced legal counsel about whether to provide the Exchange Notice after all pending further guidance from the Employee Benefit Security Administration or other relevant agencies.  If and to the extent that an employer has or in the future does provide the Exchange Notice, employers also should consult with counsel on the appropriate tailoring of the content of the Exchange Notice.  Whether or not the employer elects to provide the Exchange Notice, however, employers and the plan fiduciaries, administrators and insurers that administer the employer’s health plan will want to ensure that the plan administrator or other appropriate named fiduciary of its health plan is timely preparing and distributing the Summary of Benefits and Communications (SBC), 60-day prior notice of material plan amendments reducing coverage or service, summary plan description and host of other notices required with respect to the health plan by ERISA and other applicable laws,  See e.g. Impending 10/1 Exchange Notice & Other New Notice Deadlines Cut Time Short For Employers To Finalize 2014 Health Plan Terms & Contracts.

In connection with these and other upcoming 2013 health plan preparations, employers and applicable health plan fiduciaries, insurers, and service providers should work together to ensure that plan terms and practices are carefully updated to meet new rules, as well as to tighten long-standing terms to promote enforceability and minimize fiduciary and other exposures.  All communications about the plan generally should both match as closely as possible the language contained in the official plan documents, as well as accurately identify the relevant named fiduciary and its role on the matters addressed, notify reads of the retained rights of the plan sponsor to amend the plan, and contain other appropriate disclaimers and disclosures.

For Help or More Information

If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc. including:

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.


Tell HHS What You Think About Obamacare & Other Rules

September 9, 2013

Health plans and their employer or union sponsors, health insurers, health care providers and others concerned about the regulatory and enforcement activities of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) can make their concerns known by speaking up now.  Share your input on the draft HHS strategic plan that will guide HHS’ regulatory and enforcement agenda for the next 4 years.

The sweeping reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act have granted HHS unprecedented power over employer and other health plans, insurers and individual Americans as well as the health care providers HHS traditionally has primarily regulated.  Employers, health insurers, individuals and others concerned about the regulations HHS has issued already or those regulations and enforcement actions that it may take in the future should not miss the invaluable opportunity to share their concerns with HHS as it prepares its new strategic plan.

Every 4 years, HHS updates its strategic plan, which describes its work to address complex, multifaceted, and ever-evolving health and human service issues, including:

  • Health Care
  • Research and Innovation
  • Prevention and Wellness

HHS is inviting public input on the draft HHS Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018. The comment period is open until October 15, 2013.  Individuals or organizations wishing to respond to this invitation can read the HHS Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018 (Draft) and submit your comments several ways including:

For Help or More Information

 If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.


Employers Beware! DOL-Model FLSA Section 18B Exchange Notice Requires Tailoring!

September 5, 2013

Employers considering using model notices published by the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (DOL) here to prepare the notice (“Exchange Notice”) that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to give employees beginning October 1, 2014 about the new option created by to get health coverage beginning January 1, 2014 through the Health Insurance Exchange or “Marketplaces” should use care to tailor the notices to fit their plan design and terms.

DOL published the Model Notices in conjunction of its publication of interim guidance implementing the Exchange Notice requirements in Technical Release No. 2013-02 on May 8, 2013. While DOL says it intended for the Model Notices to help employers to prepare their Exchange Notices, the Technical Release No. 2013-02 and Model Notices have raised as many questions as they answer.

The actual content that FLSA Section 18B expressly requires that employers to provide in their Exchange Notices is relatively limited. Section 18B only expressly requires that the Exchange Notice:

  • Inform employees of coverage options, including information about the existence of the new Marketplace as well as contact information and description of the services provided by a Marketplace;
  • Inform the employee that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace; and
  • Include a statement informing the employee that if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes. At minimum, this generally requires that the Exchange Notice distributed by an employer must inform the employee.

The proposed language and content of the Model Notices proposed by the DOL does well beyond these minimum requirements.

Since DOL published Technical Release No. 2013-02 and the Model Notices, employers have struggled to determine exactly DOL considers the required content, logistics and other details of the Exchange Notice.  Technical Release 2013-02 quite clearly states that employers are not required to use the Model Notices to prepare the Exchange Notice for their health plans. Technical Release 2013-02 also clearly indicates that the content proposed in the Model Notice goes beyond the minimum required content necessary to satisfy Section 18B and not all of the language proposed in the Model Notices is “required.”  Figuring out what language is mandatory and what is option, however, is unclear. The majority of these questions and concerns are not resolved by the newly-released FAQs about the Affordable
Care Act Implementation Part XVI
  (FAQ XVI) published by DOL on September 4, 2013, discussing the appropriateness of allowing third parties to distribute the notice on behalf of an employer.

  • Furthermore, much of the proposed language in the Model Notices also raises concerns for employers, health plan fiduciaries and service providers. Among other things, certain language in the Model Notices raises the risk that using the Model Notices without appropriate changes might cause the Exchange Notice to:
  • Communicate significantly more information than the minimum information expressly required by FLSA Section 18B;
  • Incorporate speculative statements about the future eligibility of an employee for coverage or benefits that could compel the health plan or the employer to provide coverage to an employee or dependent in the future even through that individual does not meet applicable plan terms as in effect at that time;
  • Misrepresent plan information or otherwise confuse or mislead employees about the plan terms or the implications of the offered coverage on the rights of the employee to obtain a subsidy for enrolling in health coverage through the Marketplace in lieu of enrolling in employer coverage;
  • Provide misleading information about the parties authorized to interpret plan terms or make other determinations about the plan that could spread fiduciary liability to employers or their management, service providers or others not appointed to serve as named fiduciaries of the plan;
  • Inappropriately misrepresent the role, responsibility and authority of the employer, service providers or other parties in relation to critical plan responsibilities; and/or
  • Undermine the employer’s ability to modify or amend the plan in the future.

Since the Technical Release makes use of the language in the Model Notices optional, these and other issues in the language raise concerns raise concerns for employers and their health plan fiduciaries that using the Model Notice without tailoring their Exchange Notice to fit the applicable health plan could expose named fiduciaries, the employer or both to potential fiduciary liability exposures under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). While FAQ XVI only expressly answers a narrow set of questions about the Exchange Notice, the warning included the FAQ XVI from DOL that DOL expects the Exchange Notice to properly disclose the authority and role of the employers, plan fiduciaries and service providers under the health plan appears to affirm that DOL expects employers and health plan fiduciaries to tailor the notice as prudently necessary accurately to reflect plan terms and other included information.

Consequently, while employers should ensure that they meet the October 1, 2013 deadline to begin providing the Exchange Notices, they also must use care to ensure that the Exchange Notices provided are properly drafted to accurately reflect the plan terms, fiduciary allocations and other material information and incorporate other appropriate disclaimers and safeguards not included in the Model Notices.

Employers needing help with preparing the Exchange Notice or other Affordable Care Act compliance and risk management challenges are encouraged to contact the author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, who has extensive experience aiding employers, insurers and others with these and other related matters.

Editors Note:  The formatting issues in this article are the result of technical difficulties that we are working with the WordPress blog service provider to address. Thank you for your understanding.

For Help or More Information

 If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

For important information about this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.


Cascom Inc. Owner Must Pay Nearly $1.5 M After Company Misclassified Employees As Independent Contractors

August 30, 2013

The owner of a now-defunct Ohio business, Cascom Inc., will pay a heavy price for now defunct Cascom, Inc.’s misclassification of workers as independent contractors and resulting wage and hour and overtime violations.  U.S. businesses, their owners and their leaders should heed the strong warning to employers about the risks of misclassification of workers provided by the judgment and statements included in the Department of Labor (DOL) announcement of the court’s decision and take appropriate steps to audit and correct as necessary worker classification and other practices that Another in the growing tidal wave of judicial and administrative orders and settlements nailing businesses, their owners and management for misclassifications of workers resulting in violations of Federal employment, tax or other laws, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has ordered Cascom Inc. back wages and liquidated damages totaling $1,474,266 to approximately 250 cable installers that the court ruled that the Cascom Inc. misclassified as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The misclassification of employees as something other than employees, such as independent contractors, presents a serious problem for affected employees, employers and the economy. Misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections — such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance — to which they are entitled. Employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to the Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation funds.  To nix these and other concerns, the DOL, Internal Revenue Services, Department of Health & Human Services, Customs & Immigration and other federal agencies increasingly are going after businesses that misclassify workers as non-employees.

Cascom Inc. In A Nutshell

The Cascom Inc. decision is one of a fast-growing list of situations where DOL or other agencies or private plaintiffs obtained judgments or settlements under the FLSA for employers that failed to comply with these FLSA obligations because the business treated workers that under the facts and circumstances were common law employees as independent contractors or otherwise exempt from the FLSA.  See Solis v. Cascom Inc.

The FLSA generally requires that a business pay covered, nonexempt employees at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

For purposes of determining if a worker is an employee protected by the FLSA, the FLSA distinguishes an employment relationship from an independent contractor or other non-employed contractual relationship.  The protections of the FLSA apply only to employees.  An employee — as distinguished from a person who in a business of his or her own — is one who, as a matter of economic reality, follows the usual path of an employee and is dependent on the business that he or she serves. For more information, visit here.

The judgment jointly against Cascom Inc. and its owner, Julia J. Gress, arose following a damages hearing held in connection with a lawsuit originally filed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in 2009 based on a DOL Wage and Hour Division investigation which found that Cascom Inc. failed to pay overtime and engaged in other FLSA violations as a result of its wrongful classification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees.  The court previously ruled in September 2011 that Cascom Inc. and its owner, Julia J. Gress, violated the FLSA by failing to compensate employees for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week because they were misclassified as independent contractors.

The installers were found to be employees covered by the FLSA, rather than independent contractors. The court found Cascom Inc. liable for $737,133 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages, collectible from both from the company and its owner. Since the litigation began, the company has ceased operations.  Consequently, DOL plans to collect damages from owner Gress.

Employer Misclassification Audits & Enforcement Significant Risk For US Businesses

The prosecution by DOL of Cascom Inc. under the FLSA reflects the increased readiness of the DOL and other agencies to scrutinize and challenge the characterization by a business of workers as independent contractors exempt from the FLSA or other federal requirements on the obligations of an employer to an employee.  DOL and other federal agencies increasingly scrutinize the treatment by employers of a worker as an independent contractor and prosecute employers when DOL determines that FLSA or other legal obligations that the employer violated because the employer misclassified the workers.

Wage and hour laws are only one of a myriad of areas where the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service and other federal and state regulators increasingly are scrutinizing worker classifications to uncover violations of applicable law resulting from the mischaracterization of workers as exempt or as non-employee service providers.

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that employers that improperly treat workers as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requirements run a big risk.  The Labor Department and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers.  Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements.  See e.g.,  Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For EmployersQuest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime BackpayBanks’ $1Million Overtime Settlement Shows Risks of Misapplying FLSA’s Administrative Exemption;  Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Backpay Settlement; $1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices.

Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continues to conduct worker classification audits while encouraging employers to self correct existing payroll tax misclassifications by participating in a new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (“Settlement Program”) announced in September. However the limited scope of the relief provided makes use of the program challenging for most employers. See New IRS Voluntary IRS Settlement Program Offers New Option For Resolving Payroll Tax Risks Of Misclassification But Employers Also Must Manage Other Legal Risks; Medical Resident Stipend Ruling Shows Health Care, Other Employers Should Review Payroll Practices; Employment Tax Takes Center Stage as IRS Begins National Research Project , Executive Compensation Audits.  

While these and other agencies continue to keep the heat up on employers that misclassify workers, Congress also continues to consider legislation that would further clarify and tighten worker classification rules.  See e.g., Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; New IRS Worker Classification Settlement Program and Its Risks

The uptake in worker misclassification related prosecutions is no accident.  In her November 3, 2011 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. Labor Department Wage & Hour Division (WHD) Deputy Administrator (WHD) Nancy Leppink confirmed that the Labor Department is joining a growing list of federal and state agencies that are making ending employee misclassification an audit and enforcement priority.  Ms Leppink testified that “employee misclassification is a serious and, according to all available evidence, growing problem” that the Obama Administration is “committed to working to end.”  See Testimony of Nancy J. Leppink, Deputy Wage and Hour Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives (November 3, 2011).

Her testimony also makes clear that interagency coöperation and sharing of information among agencies is an increasingly valuable tool to this effort. Ms. Leppink told the Subcommittee that the Labor Department is a part of a multi-agency Misclassification Initiative that seeks to strengthen and coördinate Federal and State efforts to enforce violations of the law that result from employee misclassification.

According to Ms. Leppink, the WHD’s exchange of information about investigations with other law enforcement agencies is as “particularly important with respect to our efforts to combat the violations of our laws that occur because of employees who are misclassified as independent contractors or other non-employees.” On September 19, 2011 the Labor Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share information about investigations with each other.  The MOU helps the IRS investigate if employers the Labor Department has found in violation of federal labor laws have paid the proper employment taxes. Similarly, the WHD also entered into memoranda of understandings with several state labor agencies that allow the Labor Department to share information about its investigations and coordinate misclassification enforcement when appropriate.

“These agreements mean that all levels of government are working together to solve this critical problem,” she said.

Statements by the DOL in its announcement of its victory in Cascom Inc. confirm that the DOL’s enforcement resolve remains strong.   The DOL sent a clear warning to employers that DOL and other agencies are targeting employers that violate minimum wage and overtime, tax, and other laws by misclassifying workers that are employees as independent contractors in its press release about the Cascom, Inc. ruling, which states:

“The misclassification of employees as something other than employees, such as independent contractors, presents a serious problem for affected employees, employers and the economy. Misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections — such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance — to which they are entitled. Employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to the Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation funds.”.

Employers Urged To Audit & Strengthen Worker Classification Practices

As Federal and state regulators take aim at misclassification abuses, U.S. employers need to review each arrangement where their business receives services that the business treats as not employed by their business, as well as any employees of their business that the business treats as exempt employees keeping in mind that they generally will bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of that characterization for most purposes of law.

To guard against these and other growing risks of worker classification, employers receiving services from workers who are not considered employees for purposes of income or payroll should review within the scope of attorney-client privilege the defensibility of their existing worker classification, employee benefit, fringe benefit, employment, wage and hour, and other workforce policies and consult with qualified legal counsel about the advisability to adjust these practices to mitigate exposures to potential IRS, Labor Department or other penalties associated with worker misclassification.

Review and management of these issues is particularly timely in light of the opening by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of a new settlement program for resolving payroll tax issues resulting from misclassification.  Given broader labor and other risks, however, before taking advantage of a new Internal Revenue Service program offering employers the opportunity to resolve potential payroll tax liabilities arising from the misclassification of workers, employers should consider and develop a risk management their overall worker misclassification liability exposures.  See “New IRS Worker Classification Settlement Program and its Risks,” in the January, 2011 issue of the Dallas Bar Journal To read her article, see page 8 of the January, 2012 Dallas Bar Journal here.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with worker classification or other human resources or internal controls matters, please contact the author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization,management attorney, author and consultant  Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping private and governmental organizations and their management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; schools and other governmental agencies and others design, administer and defend innovative compliance, risk management, workforce, compensation, employee benefit, privacy, procurement and other management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers carry out, audit, manage and defend worker classification,union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, procurement, conflict of interest, discrimination management, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions.
Widely published on worker classification and other workforce risk management and compliance concerns, the immediate past-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Employee Benefits Committee,  a Council Representative of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, worker classification, re-engineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS.  ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C.  Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.

 

IRS Witholding Calculator Can Help Avoid Over & Underwithholding

April 21, 2013

If you have employees that had too much or too little tax taken out of their paychecks, refer them to this new YouTube video about using the IRS withholding calculator at inbox:body:0000000001510000020000000800000000000000:Read#Third.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other legal challenges to your organization’s labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigrations & Customs, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on worker classification and related human resources, employee benefit, internal controls and risk management matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience worker classification and other employment, employee benefits and workforce matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.

A featured presenter in the recent “Worker Classification & Alternative Workforce: Employee Plans & Employment Tax Challenges” teleconference sponsored by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com.

For important information concerning this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved.


Administration Proposes To Let PBGC Board Set Premiums In Effort To Shore Up Finances

April 10, 2013

The Obama Administration again is proposing that the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) get the power to set premium rates based on the financial soundness of company sponsors to shore up the agency’s finances in hopes of heading off the need for a government bailout of the agency’s liabilities. 

PBGC, which insures traditional pensions offered by non-governmental employers  continues to struggle for funding to meet the costs of funding its program of insuring failed private defined benefit pension plans.  Always challenging, maintaining financial solvency has become particularly problematic with company failures soaring and investment returns down in the ailing economy.  On November 16, 2012, the agency said its deficit increased to $34 billion, the largest in PBGC’s 38-year history.

The PBGC currently relies exclusively on premiums set by Congress and assets recovered from failed plans to operate and fund its private pension guarantee obligations.  It presently doesn’t receive taxpayer dollars. Premiums, set by Congress, have historically been too low to meet the agency’s needs.

 The Government Accountability Office issued a report saying Congress should consider “revising PBGC’s premium structure to better reflect the agency’s risk from individual plans and sponsors

The proposal to give the PBGC authority to determine premiums is intended to shore up the agency’s funding.  “Without premium increases PBGC will be faced with requesting a taxpayer bailout or shutting down,” said PBGC Director Josh Gotbaum.  “The current system punishes responsible companies by making them pay for the mistakes of others and punishes plans by raising rates just when companies can least afford it.  Tha’s why administrations of both parties, and recently GAO, have supported giving PBGC what the FDIC has long had — the ability to set its own rates and to set them in ways that are fair.”

The Administration originally introduced the idea of allowing the PBGC to set its own premiums in 2012.  It now has reintroduced the effort that ties premiums to company risk in its 2014 budget. Under the current proposal, the PBGC Board, which consists of secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Treasury, with the secretary of Labor as chair, wouldn’t get the authority to set rates until 2015. The budget requires the board to perform a one-year study with a public comment period. Additionally, premium increases would be gradually phased in to give company sponsors time to prepare for the new rates.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need help dealing with pension or other employee benefit funding, design or administration challenges, dealing with the PBGC,  IRS, Labor Department or other agency or legal challenge to your organization’s existing employee benefit or other practices, or other workforce re-engineering, labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients on human resources, employee benefit, internal controls and risk management matters including extensive work on workforce re-engineering and other human resources and employee benefits challenges of distressed and other companies, and related matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience worker classification and other employment, employee benefits and workforce matters,  Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.   Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com

For important information concerning this communication click here THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS.  ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C.  Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 499 other followers