Equity-Based Compensation Overtime Risks: Employers Should Review FLSA Regular-Rate Practices

May 26, 2026

Practical guidance for employers using equity compensation in nonexempt workforces.

Employers that grant restricted stock units or other equity compensation (RSUs) or other incentive compensation to non-exempt employees should keep an eye on emerging wage-and-hour litigation where employees argue employers must include the value of RSUs when calculating overtime pay.

Employers that pay nonexempt employees through a mix of cash wages and equity -particularly RSUs – face a recurring compliance question under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 207(e), about when, if ever, the employer must include the value of vested RSUs in the “regular rate” used to calculate overtime pay.

Whether RSUs fall within that broad sweep—or qualify for a statutory exclusion—remains contested in active litigation, and Congress has begun examining the question as well. Employers should not assume that historical payroll practices around equity compensation are necessarily defensible going forward.

The Regular-Rate Framework, In Brief

Section 7 of the FLSA requires employers calculate and pay nonexempt employees overtime based on the employee’s “regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207.

Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) implementing regulations explain that the regular rate is an hourly rate derived by dividing total compensation in the workweek (with limited exclusions) by total hours worked. 29 C.F.R. § 778.109. DOL guidance underscores that the regular rate “includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” except for items Congress specifically carved out. The regulations generally define the regular rate broadly to include “all remuneration for employment” subject to the enumerated exclusions 29 C.F.R. § 778.108. Thus, the regular rate is total compensation in the workweek, minus statutory exclusions, divided by total hours worked. See Fact Sheet #56A: Overview of the Regular Rate of Pay Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Worker Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, Public Law 106–202, amended section 7(e) of the FLSA by adding a new paragraph (8) to such section 7(e) to exempt any value or income derived from employer-provided grants or rights provided pursuant to a stock option, stock appreciation right, or bona fide employee stock purchase program from the determination of an employee’s regular rate for purposes of calculating such employee’s overtime compensation.

For traditional stock options, the Department of Labor has issued specific guidance recognizing that, when statutory conditions are met, income from certain stock option, stock appreciation rights, and bona fide employee stock purchase programs may qualify as excluded from the regular rate. DOL Fact Sheet #56. The Fact Sheet describes the conditions—such as eligibility, timing, and disclosure requirements—that the Department views as relevant to that exclusion. RSUs, however, are not stock options, and the Department’s stock-options guidance does not, by its terms, resolve how RSU grants and vesting should be treated under the regular rate.

Congressional Attention: The Valuing Employee Stock Today Act

On May 4, 2026 has begun engaging with the regular-rate treatment of equity compensation. Representative Ryan Mackenzie introduced the Valuing Employee Stock Today Act, described in his official press release, as legislation intended to address how equity compensation is treated for purposes of expanding worker access to equity. The bill’s introduction underscores that, beyond the courts, policymakers are actively considering whether and how to clarify the statutory treatment of stock-based pay. Until Congress acts or a controlling court decision is issued, employers operate under the existing ambiguous statutory and regulatory framework left by the omission of Congress to include RSUs expressly in the incentive stock compensation exemption added to the FLSA.

Active Litigation: The Costa v. Apple Matter

In the Costa v. Apple Inc. litigation currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a group of nonexempt employees suing Apple contend that Apple was required to include the value of vested RSUs in the regular rate used to compute their overtime. The court’s public docket reflects ongoing proceedings, N.D. Cal. case page, Costa v. Apple Inc., and the court has entered orders addressing case-management issues, including a publicly available order granting plaintiffs’ motion for distribution of judicial notice Order, Costa v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.).

At this stage, the case is best understood as an active trial-court dispute that frames—but has not resolved—the underlying regular-rate question for RSUs. To date, no official U.S. Supreme Court docket source has determined this issue. Employers should treat the legal landscape as unsettled rather than as one in which a definitive appellate or Supreme Court ruling is in hand.

Practical Tips For Employers

Given the broad statutory definition of remuneration and the unsettled treatment of RSUs, employers that pay nonexempt employees with equity should consider a focused internal review. The following steps reflect the existing legal framework without prejudging the outcome of pending litigation or legislation:

  • Inventory who receives equity. Identify any nonexempt employees who hold or vest RSUs, stock options, or other equity. Exempt-only equity programs do not raise the same regular-rate issue.
  • Map equity to workweeks. Document grant dates, vesting events, and the workweeks in which value is delivered. The regular-rate calculation is performed on a workweek basis (29 C.F.R. § 778.109).
  • Review plan documents against DOL guidance. For traditional stock option programs, compare plan terms to the conditions described in DOL Fact Sheet #56. Recognize that this guidance addresses stock options specifically and does not, on its face, resolve RSU treatment.
  • Confirm how payroll treats vested RSUs. Determine whether your payroll system currently includes vested RSU value in the regular rate, and if not, on what basis the exclusion is being taken. Document the reasoning in light of 29 U.S.C. § 207 and 29 C.F.R. § 778.108.
  • Coordinate compensation, legal, and payroll. Equity decisions are often made by compensation teams without parallel review of FLSA implications. Build a recurring touchpoint among those functions.
  • Monitor the docket and Congress. Track developments in Costa v. Apple Inc. through the court’s public case page and watch for further action on legislation such as the bill described in Representative Mackenzie’s press release.

Bottom line

The FLSA’s regular-rate rules are intentionally broad, and the Department of Labor’s longstanding guidance treats “all remuneration” as the default starting point (DOL Fact Sheet #56A; 29 C.F.R. § 778.108). With RSU treatment unsettled in the courts and on the legislative agenda, employers should not wait for a definitive ruling to confirm that their current practices rest on a documented, defensible reading of the statute and regulations. A focused internal review now is significantly less costly than a retrospective recalculation later.

Comments Off on Equity-Based Compensation Overtime Risks: Employers Should Review FLSA Regular-Rate Practices | Employer | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Equity-Based Compensation Jeopardy: Employers Should Review FLSA Regular-Rate Practices

May 26, 2026

Employers that include stock, stock options or other equity grants, restricted stock units (RSUs), stock appreciation rights (SARs), phantom stock, or other equity-based compensation in the compensation packages offered to non-exempt employees must use care to understand when federal law requires the employer to include that equity or equity-based compensation in the regular rate of pay of the non-exempt employee for purposes of calculating overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

The Regular-Rate Framework, In Brief

Section 7 of the FLSA requires employers to calculate and pay nonexempt employees overtime based on the employee’s “regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207.

Employers that pay nonexempt employees through a mix of cash wages and equity or equity-based compensation often assume these equity or equity-based incentives sit outside ordinary wage-and-hour rules because they look more like executive compensation than hourly pay. For nonexempt employees, however, that assumption can be dangerous for employers because the FLSA requires employers to calculate and pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek at the employee’s regular rate, 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); 29 C.F.R. § 778.109.

The FLSA as implemented by Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) require employers to calculate and pay overtime for overtime hours a non-exempt employee works during a workweek based on the “regular rate” of pay of the employee. For purposes of calculating the overtime due, the regular rate of a non-exempt employee “includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” except for items Congress specifically carved out pursuant to the enumerated exclusions 29 C.F.R. § 778.108. Thus, the regular rate is total compensation in the workweek, minus statutory exclusions, if any, divided by total hours worked. See Fact Sheet #56A: Overview of the Regular Rate of Pay Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

As WHD explains in Fact Sheet #56A, the FLSA requires employers to include equity and equity-based compensation when calculating the regular rate of the employee for overtime purposes unless that compensation falls under one of the express statutory exclusions granted by Congress set forth in Section 7 of the FLSA. Because the applicability of the exceptions and resulting treatment of equity and equity-based compensation can differ under these rules, employers should use care to understand and properly calculate non-exempt employees’ regular rates under these rules, particularly as employers bear the burden of justifying their failure to include any compensation from the regular rate under the FLSA.

FLSA Section 7(e)(8) Exemption For Stock Options, Stock Appreciation Rights and Bona Fide Employee Stock Purchase Program Grants

The FLSA includes a specific rule that governs when stock options, stock appreciation rights and bona fide employee stock purchase program grants are excludible for purposes of determining a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Under the Worker Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, Public Law 106–202, Congress amended section 7(e) of the FLSA to add paragraph (8), which expressly exempts from a non-exempt employee’s regular rate any value or income derived from employer-provided grants or rights provided pursuant to a “stock option, stock appreciation right, or bona fide employee stock purchase program” if certain requirements are met.

Paragraph 8 allows employers to exclude the value of stock options, stock appreciation rights and bona fide employee stock purchase program grants when calculating a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime when the arrangement meets the following criteria:

  • The value to be excluded must qualify as made under a stock option, stock appreciation right, or bona fide employee stock appreciation program.
  • The employer must provide the employee with information communicated through a reasonable means that explains in an understandable fashion the terms and conditions of the program either when the employee begins participating in the program or when the employer grants the employees stock options or stock appreciation rights.
  • Generally, the stock option or stock appreciation rights must not be exercisable for at least 6 months after the grant, except that the arrangement may allow exercise of the option for stock or cash in the event the employee dies, becomes disabled, or retires, or if there is a change in corporate ownership.
  • The employer cannot offer such options or appreciation rights to employees at more than a 15 percent discount off the fair market value of the stock or the stock equivalent determined at the time of the grant. This means that the exercise price must be at least 85% of the fair market value of the stock or its equivalent at the time of the grant.
  • The employee’s exercise of any grant or right must be voluntary.
  • Where the stock options or stock appreciation rights program is based on the performance of a business unit or employee, then the determinations of such options or rights must be made:
    • based on the employee’s past performance, so long as the determination remains at the sole discretion of the employer and not according to any prior contract requiring the employer to do so; or
    • based on future performance meeting previously established criteria (such as hours of work, efficiency or productivity) of a business unit consisting of at least 10 employees, or of an entire facility of any size. or
    • based on the employee’s past performance, so long as the determination remains at the sole discretion of the employer and not according to any prior contract requiring the employer to do so.

Where these conditions are met, paragraph (8) allows an employer to disregard the value of stock options, stock appreciation rights, and bona fide stock purchase plan grants when calculating overtime. Employers must keep in mind that the availability of this exemption depends upon the arrangement satisfying the conditions for exemption. Accordingly, the exemption is limited to the listed equity or equity based arrangement and should not be relied upon for exemption of any equity-based arrangement that is not a stock option, stock appreciation rights, or bona fide stock purchase plan or that qualifies as such arrangement but does not meet the listed conditions.

Other Equity-Styled Compensation Under The FLSA

While employers are not required to include the value of stock options, stock appreciation rights, and bona fide stock option grants that meet the conditions to qualify under FLSA Section 7(e)(8) when calculating the regular rate of an employee for overtime purposes, RSUs, phantom stock and other equity based arrangements that either are not expressly listed in Section 7(e)(8) or that while listed, do not meet the conditions to qualify as exempt under Section 7(e)(8) are treated by WHD like other bonus compensation, the value of which at the time of the grant must be included when calculating a non-exempt employee’s regular rate for overtime calculation purposes unless another statutory exclusion applies. See U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #56C.

Many employers are likely to struggle with this distinction given the functional similarities between SARs compared to phantom stock and RSU arrangements. Functionally defined, stock appreciation rights or “SARs” typically are programs that offer an employee the right to receive cash or stock equal to the appreciation in company stock value over a predetermined exercise price, fostering employee motivation without actual stock ownership. In contrast:

  • Phantom stocks are a form of contractual employee incentive compensation where employees receive hypothetical/virtual shares, reflecting actual stock value. Unlike actual equity, however, employees don’t own or have any right to own tangible shares but receive cash or equivalent value upon certain conditions; and
  • RSUs are a form of employee compensation where a company contractually grants its employees a certain number of shares, typically linked to performance milestones or tenure. Unlike traditional stock options, however, employees are not required, or perhaps don’t even have any right to buy company stock upon vesting. Instead, they seamlessly acquire the shares once the predetermined vesting conditions are fulfilled.

Where these and other equity-based or styled arrangements are not expressly exempt under Section 7(e)(8), the duty and timing of the employer’s obligation to include their value in the compensation taken into account for purposes of determining an employee’s regular rate for overtime purposes typically will follow the usual rules for determining when and what bonuses are included in the regular rate based on whether the bonus is discretionary or nondiscretionary. See U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #56C.

Equity-based compensation or other bonuses shown in practice to be based on a predetermined formula, productivity, quality, attendance, or other announced criteria are considered nondiscretionary because employees know about and expect the payment. Nondiscretionary bonuses are required to be included in the regular rate, while employers are allowed to exclude discretionary bonuses. If a payment is promised or expected under a formula, policy, agreement, or plan, WHD guidance specifies that a bonus generally is nondiscretionary rather than discretionary, and nondiscretionary amounts belong in the regular rate unless another exclusion applies. U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #56C.​Whether compensation is discretionary or nondiscretionary is determined by the surrounding facts and circumstances, not its label. The regulations likewise state that bonuses that do not qualify for exclusion must be totaled with other earnings to calculate the regular rate on which overtime pay must be based. 29 C.F.R. § 778.208.]​Applying this bonus criteria, when a phantom stock, RSUs, or similar equity-style award mount depends on measurable factors such as company performance, appreciation, length of service, or a vesting schedule tied to continued employment, a phantom stock, RSU, or other an equity-style payment not otherwise exempted by Section 7(e)(8) is more likely to count as compensation for overtime purposes when it is tied to objective criteria, announced in advance, or earned under a set formula. When the employee understands the earning conditions in advance and the employer is operating under plan terms rather than last-minute discretion, the payment is harder to characterize as an excludable discretionary bonus. U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #56C.

Active Litigation: The Costa v. Apple Matter

In the Costa v. Apple Inc. litigation currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a group of nonexempt employees suing Apple contend that Apple was required to include the value of vested RSUs in the regular rate used to compute their overtime. The court’s public docket reflects ongoing proceedings, N.D. Cal. case page, Costa v. Apple Inc., and the court has entered orders addressing case-management issues, including a publicly available order granting plaintiffs’ motion for distribution of judicial notice Order, Costa v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.).

At this stage, the case is best understood as an active trial-court dispute that frames—but has not resolved—the underlying regular-rate question for RSUs. To date, no official U.S. Supreme Court docket source has determined this issue. Employers should treat the legal landscape as unsettled rather than as one in which a definitive appellate or Supreme Court ruling is in hand.

Congressional Attention: The Valuing Employee Stock Today Act

On May 4, 2026, Representative Ryan Mackenzie introduced the Valuing Employee Stock Today Act, described in his official press release, as legislation intended to address how equity compensation is treated for purposes of expanding worker access to equity. The bill’s introduction underscores that, beyond the courts, policymakers are actively considering whether and how to clarify the statutory treatment of stock-based pay. Until Congress acts or a controlling court decision is issued, employers operate under the existing ambiguous statutory and regulatory framework left by the omission of Congress to include RSUs expressly in the incentive stock compensation exemption added to the FLSA. Employers interested in broadening the Section 7(e)(8) exemption to cover RSU, phantom stock or other of equity-based compensation arrangements not currently expressly listed in Section 7(c)(8) should consider following and working with legal counsel to express support for this or other similar amendments.

Practical Tips For Employers

Given the broad statutory definition of remuneration, employers that pay nonexempt employees with equity or equity-based compensation should work with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege:

  • To conduct a focused, documented review to assess the defensibility of their practices for calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes currently and for the previous two years within the past two years; and
  • If the employer desires to exclude equity-based or other bonus compensation from regular rate calculations for non-exempt employees, explore the availability and feasibiliity of options to design those arrangements to qualify as discretionary, as an arrangement exempt under FLSA Section 7(e)(8), or both; and
  • Other steps to mitigate their FLSA overtime pay and compliance liability.

Due to the potential sensitivity of the analysis and discussions regarding potential past or current compliance concerns, the process of evaluation generally should be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege and typically will include the following steps:

  • Inventory who receives equity and equity-based compensation and the governing terms of that grant or promise.
  • Determine whether your payroll system currently includes vested RSU value in the regular rate, and if not, on what basis the exclusion is being taken. Document the reasoning in light of 29 U.S.C. § 207 and 29 C.F.R. § 778.108.
  • Identify and confirm the defensibility of classifications of workers as employees versus contractors and among service providers properly classified as employees, as exempt versus non-exempt keeping in mind the increasingly successful worker misclassification enforcement of the FLSA and other laws.
  • Once proper classification is confirmed, identify any nonexempt employees who hold or vest RSUs, stock options, or other equity or equity-based compensation.
  • Map equity to workweeks to identify and document grant dates, vesting events, and the workweeks in which value is delivered. The regular-rate calculation is performed on a workweek basis (29 C.F.R. § 778.109).
  • Review plan documents against DOL guidance to determine their defensible classification for purposes of the Section 7(e)(8) exemption taking into account the conditions described in DOL Fact Sheet #56.
  • For arrangements not meeting the conditions for exemption under FLSA Section 7(e)(8), work with legal counsel conduct a documented evaluation of the defensibility of characterization of the arrangement as a discretionary bonus for purposes of the FLSA.
  • Audit and confirm how payroll treats each equity and equity-based compensation element for purposes of the FLSA including whether that compensation is included or excluded in the non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime purposes when required.
  • Coordinate compensation, legal, and payroll. Equity decisions are often made by compensation teams without parallel review of FLSA implications. Build a recurring touchpoint among those functions with appropriate governance, oversight and controls.
  • Monitor and track developments in Costa v. Apple Inc. through the court’s public case page and other similar litigation.
  • Watch for further action on legislation such as the bill described in Representative Mackenzie’s press release and other similar legislation and share support as your organization determines appropriate.

Bottom Line

Given the significant liability and the burdens of proof employers bear in defending their compliance with the FLSA, employers should exercise care to ensure the defensibility of their practices when taking into account equity and equity-based or other bonus compensation when calculating the regular rate of non-exempt employees for purposes of paying overtime under the FLSA. The FLSA’s regular-rate rules are intentionally broad, and the Department of Labor’s longstanding guidance treats “all remuneration” as the default starting point (DOL Fact Sheet #56A; 29 C.F.R. § 778.108). Employers must know and be prepared to produce documentation to support their compliance with FLSA requirements for tracking and including equity, equity-based and other compensation in the regular rate used to calculate overtime for non-exempt employees.

 For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising and assisting employer of all types and sizes to design, audit, administer, and defend their wage and hour, equity and other compensation, and other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation and other legal and operational compliance including designing and administering equity, equity-based and other bonus compensation and other compensation and employee benefits plans for executives, directors and officers, and non-exempt employees; conducting and defending audits and investigations, designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow. For more information about these or other health care, managed care and other health benefits or other health industry laws or concerns, contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Certification, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law for her more than 35 years’ experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on FLSA and other labor and employment, executive and other compensation, employee benefits, performance and risk management and otherlegal and operational compliance in connection with her work with health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, Ms. Stamer has more than 35 years experience advising employers about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.

Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her decades of leading edge experience on the design, sponsorship, administration and defense of health and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability and promote other operational goals.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section Welfare Plan Committee, Co-Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and its Annual Meeting Program Planning Committee, Chair Emeritus and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee. She also has served as Scribe for the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services and JCEB Council Representative, International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member, Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, as TIPS Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits Committee and Workers Compensation Committee Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is recognized for her contributions to strengthening health care policy and charitable and community service resolving health care challenges performed under PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also frequently speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see http://www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

, working on equity and nonequity executive and other workforce compensation, FLSA, and other labor, employment, compensation and employee benefit plan design, administration and complance, and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefits, performance management, governance, regulatory and legislative affairs and other legal and operational risk management and complianc econcerns.

Former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security Privatization reform, miss Stamer also has extensive legislative and regulatory affairs experience on federal, state and international employee benefits, healthcare, workforce, education, insurance, data privacy and security, antitrust, and other regulations and reforms.

In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations, Ms. Stamer currently or previously served as the Scribe leading annual agency meetings on HIPAA and other issues with the Department of Health and Human Services; leadership Council Representative, speaker, author and faculty lead for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and International Life Sciences Committee Chair; the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees Vice Chair; the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair and Risk Management Interest Group Chair; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Welfare Benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, and Plan Terminations and Transactions Committees Chair; Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association; a Southwest Benefits Association Board Member; a SHRM Consultants National and Region IV Board Chair; WEB National Board Member and Dallas Chapter President; National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board Member and Compliance Chair; Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency Board President; a North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member; and other leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded works on health and other benefits, human resources, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns, examples of these publications include “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other publications and presentations. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

 

Comments Off on Equity-Based Compensation Jeopardy: Employers Should Review FLSA Regular-Rate Practices | Civil Monetary Penalties, compensation, compensation transparency, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, equity based compensation, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, Government Contractors, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, Labor Management Relations, Non-Exempt, Pay, phantom stock, ray, Retaliation, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Restructuring To Strengthen Rights of Conscience and Religious Freedom Rights Oversight and Enforcement

May 20, 2026

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) May 18, 2026 announcement of its reorganization of its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) signals employer and other health plan sponsors, health care providers and others funded or regulated by HHS experiencing discrimination or other conflicts with conscience or religious objections may expect greater protection from HHS, even as it warns federal health care exchange, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage health plans, and other health payers; health care providers; housing and education providers, states and other organizations and individuals receiving HHS funding to ensure their practices and policies comply with current HHS policies on federal conscience and religious freedom rights.

The reorganization of the HHS agency charged with enforcing HHS-administered laws protecting civil rights, conscience and religious freedom, and health information privacy and security, returns OCR to a program-based structure that reelevates conscience and religious freedom protection enforcement by realigning OCR into three distinct subject-matter divisions:

  • The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division,responsible for enfocing federal rights of conscience and religious freedom;
  • The Civil Rights Division, responsible for enforcing Section 1557 and other civil rights and disability laws implemented and enforced by HSS; and
  • The Health Information Privacy, Data, and Cybersecurity Division, responsible for implementing and enforcing the privacy, data security, data breach and privacy rights of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other privacy and data security requirements implemented and enforced by HHS.

Historical Background Leading To Reorganization

HHS originally established a separate OCR Conscience and Religious Freedom Division (CRFD) to handle federal enforcement of the nation’s laws that protect the rights of conscience and religious freedom protected under the United States Constitution and other federal laws in January 2018 during President Trump’s first presidency. That division enforced and raised public awareness of conscience and religious freedom laws in health and human services, underscoring that violations are serious infractions that transgress basic human dignity and fundamental rights.

CRFD operated until March of 2023, when the Biden administration dissolved the division in 2023. Although OCR maintained jurisdiction over conscience and religious freedom authorities in health and human services after 2023, the Biden Administration combined the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division and the then-Civil Rights Division into the Policy Division.

According to the announcement, the intake and processing of complaints filed with OCR, and the review of reported breaches involving unsecured protected health information, will continue to be handled by an Enforcement Division that supports centralized intake and field-office execution. The reorganization is not expected to result in a reduction of OCR’s workforce.The OCR reorganization announcement reports OCR will publish more information about the reorganization in a Federal Register notice next month. Scribe and stay tuned for more developments.

Reorganization Part of HHS Actions To Enhance Conscience Rights and Religious Freedom Protections

OCR intends for the reorganization to strengthen its enhanced efforts to protect federal rights of conscience and religious freedom undertaken in response to Trump Administration directives. OCR’s announcement responds builds upon the Trump Administration policy and HHS’ resulting recent efforts to enforce federally protected right of conscience protections and protect human life. 

Since President Trump began his second administration, he has made protection of rights of conscience, freedom of religion and protection of human life policy priorities. See  Fact Sheet: HHS Takes Comprehensive Action to Enforce Conscience Rights and Protect Human Life, and OCR’s conscience and religious freedom webpage. Since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has issued several executive orders and presidential directives designed to expand protections for religious liberty, conscience rights, and faith-based participation in federal programs since beginning his second term in office by among other things:

  • Establishing the White House Faith Office within the Executive Office of the President and ordering all executive agencies to protect religious liberty, coordinate with faith-based organizations, and identify barriers affecting religious groups seeking participation in federal programs under Executive Order 14205;
  • Creating a federal “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” led by the Department of Justice and involving multiple agencies charged with reviewing federal policies, investigations, and enforcement activities allegedly discriminating against Christians or religious organizations. DOJ Task Force Report on Anti-Christian Bias and Religious Liberty;
  • Establishing the Religious Liberty Commission, declaring it federal policy to “vigorously enforce” protections for religious liberty under federal law, and directing the Commission to study threats to and recommend safeguards for religious exercise including conscience protections, free exercise rights, religious education, and the role of faith-based organizations in public life under Executive Order 14291; and
  • Proclaiming January 26. 2026, Religious Freedom Day, 2026.

OCR’s announced restructuring is part of a broader set of activities OCR is undertaking to strengthen its oversight and enforcement of conscience and religious freedom rights in response to these Trump Administration directives. Before announcing the restructuring, OCR already has taken enforcement action to protect health care workers, support whistleblowers, and reinforce adherence to religious and conscience exemptions in the Vaccines for Children Program as part of these policies. For example, OCR previously has:

  • Repudiated a 2021 Biden Administration era letter that excluded employers and plan sponsors from the scope of health care entities protected by the Weldon Amendment and notified states and other regulated entities no longer rely on the now-repudiated legal position;
  • Repudiated other Biden Administration era policies on reproductive rights, diversity equity and inclusion and other policies considered outdated or inconsistent with the Trump Administration’s interpretation of federal conscience and religious freedom rights;
  • Issued public notices describing OCR deregulatory actions to align with President Trump’s E.O. 14182, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment;
  • Issued a nationwide Dear Colleague Letter explaining OCR’s right of conscious policy under the Trump Administration;
  • Issued a Notice of Violation that found an Illinois state law violated the Weldon and the Coats-Snowe Amendments, which are among two dozen federal health care conscience protection statutes that HHS enforces. The Illinois Notice of Violation charges the Illinois law unlawfully ties health care provider conscience protections to referral requirements in the case of abortion;
  • OCR announced its investigation of 13 states for allegedly violating the Weldon Amendment federal health care conscience law by coercing health care entities, health insurers, and employers and their health plans to provide coverage of, or pay for, abortion contrary to conscience;
  • To educate the public, OCR also released a nationwide Dear Colleague Letter summarizing federal health care conscience protection statutes, including those laws specific to abortion, sterilization, and assisted suicide; and
  • Undertaken high profile investigations and enforcement actions against academic medicine and other health, education or other HHS funding recipients perceived to have discriminated or violated rights of conscience or religious freedoms of individuals of Christian or Jewish faith.

OCR’s announcement of the reorganization makes clear it intends for the reorganization to strengthen its ability to enforce these and other interpretations and policies for the protection and defense of rights of conscience and religious freedom in accordance with the Trump Administration directives. The announcement quotes HHS Office for Civil Rights Director Paula M. Stannard as saying, “This reorganization reinstitutes a structure that rightly prioritizes civil rights and conscience and religious freedom alongside health information privacy and security,” and that “All three areas are deserving of subject-matter expertise and distinct senior executive leadership for OCR to best serve the American people.” HHS’ announcement also states the reorganized structure will improve OCR’s effectiveness and efficiency to advance the protection of conscience rights, address race-based discrimination in a color-blind manner, eradicate antisemitism and anti-Christian bias, and restore biological truth.

Given the current emphasis of OCR and other federal agencies on protection and enforcement of federally protected rights of conscience and religious freedom under current Trump Administration policies, employers, health care providers, health insurers and plans, academic medicine and other education, housing and other entities funded or participating in HHS programs specifically should contact qualified legal counsel for assistance in evaluating and ensuring that their policies and procedures properly align with OCR right of conscience and religious freedom enforcement policies. Along with generally reviewing policies or practices that might raise right of conscience or religious discrimination or freedom concerns, these entities also should tread carefully and seek the assistance of legal counsel with identifying and responding to requests or other potential right of conscience, religious discrimination, or religious freedom concerns arising in their dealings with employees, service providers, customers and others.

Meanwhile employer and other plan sponsors and other organizations that feel that they are suffering discrimination or other violations of their rights of conscience or religious freedom may wish to evaluate their ability to secure accommodations or other relief under the religious freedom and right of conscience policies from HHS or other applicable federal agencies, the courts, or both.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising and assisting health industry clients to design, audit, and defend their organizations and practices including conducting audits and investigations, designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow. For more information about these or other health care, managed care and other health benefits, or other health industry laws or concerns, contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorney and advisor board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization peer peer celebrated as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in ERISA & Employee Benefits Law, Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business and Commercial Law.

Nationally recognised for her decades of leading edge health and other employee benefits and insurance, compensation, human resources and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, Ms. Stamer is well known for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health benefit and other health and managed care, privacy and data security and other employee benefit, insurance, and health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. 

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a a key focus of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; third party administrators and other health benefit service providers; hospitals, health care systems and other health care providers, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Her experience includes more than 35 years of leading edge work for employer and other plan sponsors, plans and their fiduciaries, insurers, third party administrators, health care clearinghouses and other health care, insurance and other data and technology providers, and others on health and other employee benefits design, administration, compliance, and policy including decades of work on fiduciary compliance and risk management; eligibility, coverage and other plan mandates; administrative simplification and transparency; PBM, pharmacy and pharmaceutical management and regulation; surprise billing and other non-par provider; direct provider, vendor and other credentialing, contracting and management; and other managed care and insurance; high deductible, minimum or level premium, captive and other non traditional funding; and agency and private audits, investigations and enforcement; and other insured and self-insured health benefit contracting, design, administration, regulation, fiduciary and other liability managment, and other design, compliance, risk management, defense, and operations solutions.

She also has extensive experience helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve  sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Section 504, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology,  data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care;  internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Department of Insurance, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, trucking, alcohol and firearm, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement;  and other strategic and operational concerns.

Former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security Privatization reform, miss Stamer also has extensive legislative and regulatory affairs experience on federal, state and international employee benefits, healthcare, workforce, education, insurance, data privacy and security, antitrust, and other regulations and reforms.

In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations, Ms. Stamer currently or previously served as the Scribe leading annual agency meetings on HIPAA and other issues with the Department of Health and Human Services; leadership Council Representative, speaker, author and faculty lead for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and International Life Sciences Committee Chair; the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees Vice Chair; the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair and Risk Management Interest Group Chair; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Welfare Benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, and Plan Terminations and Transactions Committees Chair; Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association; a Southwest Benefits Association Board Member; a SHRM Consultants National and Region IV Board Chair; WEB National Board Member and Dallas Chapter President; National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board Member and Compliance Chair; Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency Board President; a North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member; and other leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded works on health and other benefits, human resources, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns, examples of these publications include “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other publications and presentations. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

Comments Off on OCR Restructuring To Strengthen Rights of Conscience and Religious Freedom Rights Oversight and Enforcement | Civil Rights, Discrimination, health Care, Health Plans, HHS, HIPAA, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, OCR, Public Policy, religious accommodation, Religous Discrimination, RIghts of Conscience and Religious Freedom, Section 1557 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New California SB 497 90-day Retaliation Presumption Highlights Risk Employers Everywhere Face When Performance Issues Appear Only After Protected Activity

May 19, 2026

California’s SB 497 gives employees a statutory advantage in certain retaliation claims by creating a rebuttable presumption when prohibited employer action occurs within 90 days of protected activity under Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1197.5. California Legislature. For employers everywhere, however, the larger lesson is not limited to California or to a 90-day window. Retaliation claims become harder to defend whenever performance concerns first appear, escalate, or become formally documented only after an employee reports misconduct, complains about unlawful practices, discusses wages, invokes workplace rights, or engages in other protected activity.

SB 497’s New Presumption Changes the Litigation Starting Point in California

SB 497 amended California Labor Code section 98.6 to provide that if an employer takes action prohibited by that section within 90 days of protected activity, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee’s claim” .California Labor Code section 98.6. Section 98.6 protects employees and applicants from discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or adverse action for exercising specified Labor Code rights, including wage complaints, Labor Commissioner proceedings, and PAGA-related activity California Labor Code section 98.6.

SB 497 also amended Labor Code section 1197.5 to apply a similar 90-day rebuttable presumption to retaliation claims involving equal pay and wage transparency rights. California Labor Code section 1197.5. Section 1197.5 prohibits retaliation against employees for invoking or assisting enforcement of California equal pay rights, and it protects employees who disclose, discuss, or inquire about wages. California Labor Code section 1197.5.

Why Post-Complaint Performance Documentation Is Risky

The most common employer defense to retaliation charges is that the challenged action was based on performance, misconduct, attendance, or business needs. That defense is strongest when the employer can show consistent documentation, prior coaching, objective standards, and comparable treatment of similarly situated employees.

It is much weaker when the record looks different before and after protected activity. If the employee had positive reviews, no written warnings, tolerated deficiencies, or informal coaching before the complaint, and then suddenly receives heightened scrutiny, a PIP, discipline, suspension, or termination afterward, the employee will argue that the employer went looking for a reason to act.

That concern is not theoretical. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., the California Supreme Court shot down the employer’s poor performance defense. The employer cited poor performance and failure to improve under a performance improvement plan, but the California Supreme Court held that Labor Code section 1102.6 governs section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claims and does not require the employee to prove the employer’s stated reason was pretextual. Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. Once the employee shows protected whistleblowing was a contributing factor, the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the same action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even absent the protected activity Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes,

The Same Defense Challenge Exists Outside California

Federal law does not generally impose California’s SB 497-style 90-day presumption. Still, timing remains important. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that temporal proximity may support causation when it is “very close,” while also holding that an employer need not suspend a previously planned action after learning of protected activity. Clark County School District v. Breeden.

Title VII retaliation claims require proof that retaliation was a but-for cause of the challenged action, not merely a motivating factor. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Even so, close timing, shifting explanations, uneven enforcement, and documentation created only after protected activity can create the factual disputes that make retaliation claims expensive to defend.

Bottom Line for All Employers

California’s 90-day presumption makes covered retaliation claims easier for employees to frame, but it does not create the underlying problem. The real exposure arises when the employer’s performance narrative begins only after protected activity. Employers that want to preserve defensible discipline should build the record before conflict arises, apply standards consistently, and require careful HR and legal review before taking adverse action close in time to protected conduct.

Practical Steps Employers Should Take

Employers do not have to ignore performance issues because an employee complained or engaged in protected activity. They do, however, need to prove that the decision was legitimate, consistent, and independent.

  • Document issues when they happen: Do not wait until after a complaint to document missed deadlines, quality issues, attendance problems, policy violations, or conduct concerns.
  • Audit timing before adverse action: Before discipline, termination, demotion, schedule reduction, compensation changes, or a PIP, check whether the employee recently engaged in protected activity.
  • Separate the complaint process from discipline: Where possible, keep the complaint investigator separate from the performance decisionmaker.
  • Confirm decisionmaker knowledge: Identify who made the decision, what they knew, when they knew it, and what evidence supported the action.
  • Use objective criteria: Tie discipline to measurable standards, written policies, documented expectations, and specific incidents.
  • Compare similar cases: Review how the employer handled similar performance or conduct issues involving employees who did not engage in protected activity.
  • Avoid sudden escalation: If the same issue was tolerated before protected activity, explain and document what changed.
  • Review PIPs carefully: A PIP issued after a complaint should be realistic, job-related, supported by prior evidence, and free from retaliatory tone.
  • Train managers: Supervisors should understand that complaints, wage discussions, whistleblower reports, accommodation requests, safety reports, and participation in investigations may be protected.

If you have questions about or need assistance with these and other risk management or compliance concerns, contact the author. 

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the  or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Certification, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 35 years experience, advising plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others about fiduciary responsibility and other employee benefit plan design, administration, risk management and compliance. i

Ms. Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy for 35 plus years of experience advising and representing, employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and administrators, their administrative services, technology and other business associates and other vendors, managed care and insurance, health care and other clients about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.  

Ms. Stamer is nationally sought out for her decades of leading-edge experience in the design, sponsorship, administration, and defense of workforce, health, severance, savings retirement and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology, and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability, and advance other operational goals. This experience includes decades of work on ERISA, Internal Revenue Code and other related labor and employment, insurance, corporate and securities, data privacy and security, licensing and other laws. She also sought out for her extensive speaking and publications on these and related concerns.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations including current or previous service as Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member for the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section and Chair of its Welfare Plan, Fiduciary Responsibility and Plan Terminations Committees; Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee; Chair and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, Vice Chair of its Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees; and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management and Special Technologies Committees; ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) Council Representative and Scribe for its annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services; International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair; Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair; Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is valued and celebrated for her decades of policy advocacy and charitable, pro bono, community and other service and leadership to promote understanding and strengthening health care, workforce, saving, disability, aging and retirement and other key policies and challenges through her PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also often speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry, health and other benefits, workforce and other experience and involvements, see the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer P.C. website or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press™

Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.

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 your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could change the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department 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.

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

 

Comments Off on New California SB 497 90-day Retaliation Presumption Highlights Risk Employers Everywhere Face When Performance Issues Appear Only After Protected Activity | 5000, ADA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Retail, Retaliation, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer