Corporate Compliance |

New OCR HIPAA De-Identification Guidance Among Developments Covered In 12/12 HIPAA Update Web Workshop

November 27, 2012

Get Up To Date On Details of New De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments By Participating In 12/12 HIPAA Update Web Workshop

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates and leadership should check and update their policies and practices for the de-identification of protected health information (PHI) in light of newly-released Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance With the Health Insurance Portability and Accountablity Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule (Guidance) released by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights yesterday (November 26, 2012).

Solutions Law Press, Inc. will host a one-hour, online HIPAA Update Workshop on the Guidance and other recent regulatory and enforcement developments under HIPAA for covered entities and their business associates on Wednesday, December 12 beginning at Noon Central Time. To register, see here.

PHI collected by health care providers, health plans, their management, sponsors, and vendors often includes a wealth of information valuable for use for functions unrelated to the HIPAA-covered functions and activities that leads covered entities or their business associates to collect or keep this data. While it might be tempting to repurpose this information for business planning and marketing purposes, covered entities and their business partners or associates frequently assume that covered entities and others that they deal with must take proper steps to that no PHI is used, accessed, disclosed or shared unless that action is allowed under the Privacy Rules, properly de-identified, or both.

When planning to rely upon the de-identification of PHI to engage in these activities, parties planning to rely upon HIPAA’s exception for de-identified PHI will want to consult new guidance just released by OCR about the de-identification requirements before moving forward. Existing Privacy Rules and the Guidance recognize two alternative methods that covered entities and their business can use to properly de-identify PHI for purposes of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

OCR published the Guidance to help covered entities to understand what qualifies as de-identification, the general process by which de-identified information is created, and the options available for performing de-identification for purposes of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The publication of this guidance was mandated as part of amendments to HIPAA enacted by Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Section 13424(c) of the HITECH Act requires the HHS to issue guidance on how best to implement the requirements for the de-identification of health information contained in the Privacy Rule.

De-identification & Its Rationale Under Privacy Rule

The Privacy Rule was designed to protect individually identifiable health information through permitting only certain uses and disclosures of PHI provided by the Rule, or as authorized by the individual subject of the information. However, in recognition of the potential utility of health information even when it is not individually identifiable, §164.502(d) of the Privacy Rule permits a covered entity or its business associate to create information that is not individually identifiable by following the de-identification standard and implementation specifications in Privacy Rule §164.514(a)-(b). These provisions allow the entity to use and disclose information that neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual provided the Covered Entity can show that the PHI has been de-identified in accordance with either the Expert Determination Method or the Safe Harbor Method of the de-identification standard of the Privacy Rule and is not re-identified. Regardless of the method used to de-identify PHI, the Privacy Rule does not restrict the use or disclosure of de-identified health information, as it is no longer considered PHI and is not re-identified.

Privacy Rule De-Identification Implementation Standards Permit Alternative Methods of De-identification

Section 164.514(a) of the HIPAA Privacy Rule provides the standard for de-identification of protected health information. Under this standard, health information is not individually identifiable if it does not identify an individual and if the covered entity has no reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify an individual. See Privacy Rule § 164.514.

Sections 164.514(b) and (c) of the Privacy Rule contain the implementation specifications that a covered entity must follow to meet the de-identification standard. As summarized in Figure 1, the Privacy Rule provides two methods by which health information can be designated as de-identified:

The formal determination by a qualified expert in accordance with the Privacy Rule (Expert Determination Method); or
The removal of specified individual identifiers as well as absence of actual knowledge by the covered entity that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify the individual (Safe Harbor Method).

In order for PHI to qualify as de-identified under the “Expert Determination Method, Privacy Rule § 164.514(b)(1) requires that a person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable:

Applying such principles and methods, determines that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is a subject of the information; and
Documents the methods and results of the analysis that justify such determination.

Alternatively, Privacy Rule § 164.514(b)(2) provides that PHI will qualify as de-identified under the Safe Harbor Method if:

All of an extensive list of identifiers of the individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual, are removed from the data; and
The covered entity does not have actual knowledge that the information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual who is a subject of the information.

As long as the data is not re-identified, the Guidance indicates that a covered entity may prove fulfillment of the de-identification standard of Privacy Rule §164.514(a) by showing satisfaction of all applicable requirements of either method. Under the Privacy Rule, de-identified health information created following these methods is no longer protected by the Privacy Rule because it does not fall within the definition of PHI. Of course, de-identification leads to information loss which may limit the usefulness of the resulting health information in certain circumstances. Consequently, covered entities may wish to select de-identification strategies that minimize such loss.

Both alternatives for de-identification under the Privacy Rule require that covered entities and their business associates decide whether and how to keep the option for re-identification of PHI slated for de-identification and where applicable, appropriately manage the re-identification opportunity and data to avoid violation of the Privacy Rule.

According to the Privacy Rule, if a covered entity or business associate successfully undertook an effort to identify the subject of de-identified information it maintained, the health information now related to a specific individual would again be protected by the Privacy Rule, as it would meet the definition of PHI. Disclosure of a code or other means of record identification designed to enable coded or otherwise de-identified information to be re-identified is also considered a disclosure of PHI. In this regard, Privacy Rule §164.514(c) specifies that if the covered entity assigns a code or other means of record identification to allow information de-identified under this section to be re-identified by the covered entity, themeans of record identification is not derived from or related to information about the individual and is not otherwise capable of being translated so as to identify the individual; it can’t use elements of the protected PHI as the re-identification key,must safeguard the key, and can’t use or disclose the key or other re-identification tool for any other purpose.

Preparing For, Guiding & Documenting The De-identification Process For Defensibility

The Guidance stresses that importance of documentation for which values in health data correspond to PHI, as well as the systems that manage PHI and its risk of identification or re-identification in the de-identification process cannot be overstated.

The Guidance provides guidance to help guide covered entities and their business associates through the steps and analysis of using the Expert Determination versus Safe Harbor Method. A review of this Guidance makes clear that the design and administration of the de-identification process under either method requires careful and well-documented planning, analysis and implementation to fulfill and to keep the documentation that a covered entity or business associate might need to defend its decision to treat and use PHI as de-identified under the Privacy Rule against a potential audit or enforcement inquiry. The Guidance also seeks to further illuminate the requirements for effective de-identification through a series of questions and answers, supplemented by work flow and other charts, examples and other illustrations and tips on the proper use of each alternative Method and managing risks and the process associated with that Method. A Glossary of Terms also is shared. The discussion in the Guidance makes clear that covered entities and their businesses associates using either Method to de-identify PHI should be prepared to make a number of judgments about which Method to use, whether and how to make arrangements for re-identification, and how to properly manage the process to meet the requirements of the implementation standard and manage re-identification or other risks.

Register For 12/12 HIPAA Update Web Workshop To Catch Up On De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA & Texas HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Developments

Training and compliance mandates applicable to covered entities and their business associates under the newly strengthened Texas HIPAA law and HIPAA’s Privacy and Breach Notification Rules make it more important than ever that covered entities and their business associates get the timely training and other assistance needed to properly comply with requirements for the protection of PHI under the new Guidance and other HIPAA and Texas HIPAA mandates.

To aid in this process, Solutions Law Press, Inc. will host a 2012 HIPAA Update Web Workshop covering the new Guidance on de-identification and other regulatory and enforcement developments under HIPAA and the newly amended Texas HIPAA law on December 12, 2012 from 1:00 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | Noon – 1:00 P.M. Central | 11:00 A.M-Noon Mountain | 10:00A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific Time.

Expanded health care privacy mandates of the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act that take effect September 1, 2012 and HIPAA regulations require covered entities and their business associates conduct training and take other steps to protect the privacy and security of PHI.

Complete HIPAA Training While You Catch Up On The Latest On HIPAA & Texas Medical Records Privacy Rules & Get Helpful Compliance And Risk Management Tips!

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses face new imperatives to strengthen their HIPAA and other procedures for handling protected health information and other sensitive information to manage expanding risks and responsibilities arising from evolving rules, expanding enforcement and oversight, and rising penalties and other liabilities.

The $4.3 million HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty and growing list of $1 million plus resolution payments announced by the Office of Civil Rights coupled with its commitment to investigate all large breaches reported under the HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule and other stepped up enforcement and newly initiated audit activities send a clear signal that HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates face significant exposures for failing to appropriately manage their HIPAA and other responsibilities when handling protected health information. Meanwhile, Texas House Bill 300 has raised maximum state civil penalties for unlawful disclosures of Protected Health Information under the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act to from $5,000 to $1.5 million per year. Meanwhile HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA require covered entities provide notification of certain breaches while Texas House Bill 300 adds its own specific requirements to provide notice of certain breaches of computerized data containing sensitive personal information.

With Texas House Bill 300 expanding covered entities responsibilities and liabilities and OCR issuing new regulations and other guidance to implement amendments to the HIPAA Privacy & Security Standards and implement and enforce the HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule, health care providers, health plans and insurers, their brokers, third-party administrators, and other covered entities, as well as their business associates and employer and union clients must review and tighten their policies, practices, business associate and other contracts, and enforcement to manage HIPAA and other compliance and manage risks arising from the access, collection, use, protection and disclosure of PHI to meet expanding mandates and to guard against growing liability exposures under HIPAA and other federal and state laws.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to catch up on the latest on these and other key HIPAA requirements and enforcement and learn tips for managing risks and liabilities by participating in the “HIPAA Update Workshop” on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 via WebEx for a registration fee of $125.00.

Pre-approved for various types of continuing and professional education credit, the December 12, 2012 HIPAA Update Workshop will brief participants on the De-Identification Guidance as well as the latest on other regulatory and enforcement guidance under the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification rules and guidance and share compliance and risk management lessons emerging from recent OCR enforcement and audit activities and other selected federal and state litigation and enforcement actions impacting the handling of protected health information. Among other things, the workshop will cover:

The De-Identification Guidance just released by OCR on November 26, 2012;
The latest HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Guidance, Audits & Enforcement
Highlights Texas House Bill’s Amendments To Texas Medical Records Privacy Law That Took Effect September 1, 2012
Post HITECH Act Heightened Liability Risks: Audits, Civil Penalties, Criminal Penalties & State Lawsuits
Expansion of HIPAA Responsibilities & Liabilities To Business Associates & What Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Do In Response
HIPAA Data Breach Notification Requirements
Practical Challenges & Strategies For Managing These Responsibilities
Tips For Coordinating HIPAA & Other Federal & State Medical Privacy, Financial Information, Identity Theft & Date Security Compliance and Risk Management
Practical Strategies For Monitoring & Responding To New Requirements & Changing Rules
Participant Questions

About The Speaker

The workshop will be conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association Vice-President and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public health care providers, employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on privacy and data security, health care, health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with heath care providers, health plans and other payers, health and insurance IT and data systems, and others on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. She served as the scrivener for the ABA JCEB Agency Meetings with the Office of Civil Rights on HIPAA Privacy for the past two years. She presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com) and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on HIPAA and other privacy and data security risks and requirements as well as a broad range of other health, employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with OCR and other HHS agencies, as well as the Departments of Labor, Treasury, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, Congress and state legislatures, and various state attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, medical licensure and disciplinary and other agencies and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on HIPAA and other privacy, health care, employee benefits, human resources, insurance and related topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators and many other organizations. Her insights on privacy and other matters are quoted in Modern Healthcare, HealthLeaders, Benefits, Caring for the Elderly, The Wall Street Journal and many other publications. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to ask about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Registration

The Registration Fee is $125.00 per person. Registration Fee Discounts available for groups of three or more. Pre-payment required via website registration required via website PayPal. No checks or cash accepted. Persons not registered at least 48 hours in advance will only participate subject to system and space availability.

Continuing Education Credit

The HIPAA Update Workshop is approved to be offered for general certification credit by the State Bar of Texas, Texas Department of Insurance, HRCI and WorldAtWork education credit for the time period offered subject to fulfillment all applicable accrediting agency requirements, completion of required procedures. Note that the applicable credentialing agency retain the final authority to determine whether an individual qualifies to receive requested continuing education credit. Neither Solutions Law Press, Inc., the speaker or any of their related parties guarantees the approval of credit for any individual or has any liability for any denial of credit. Special fees or other conditions may apply. CANCELLATION & REFUND POLICY: In order to receive credit, cancellation (either fax or mail) must be received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting and are subject to a $10.00 refund processing fee. Refunds will be made within 60 days of receipt of written cancellation notice.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: 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. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request.

Comments Off on New OCR HIPAA De-Identification Guidance Among Developments Covered In 12/12 HIPAA Update Web Workshop | ADA, Civil Rights, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Wellness Programs | Tagged: compliance, Health Care, Heatlh Plans, HIPAA, PHI, Texas Medical Records Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rare Court Order Telling Union To Stop Filing Grievances Example Of Employer Risks When Caught Between Competiting Unions

November 23, 2012

A district court judge in Washington has ordered the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) to stop processing grievances and filing lawsuits against a competitive union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and, pending the outcome of further litigation, employers assigning work of plugging in, unplugging and monitoring refrigerated shipping containers at the Port of Portland to IBEW. The litigation between the two competing unions shows how employers can get caught in risky, no-win liability exposures as a result of power battles between competing unions over the right to represent workers performing services for the employers.

The injunctive order steps from a dispute between both unions over which union is entitled to represent a group of workers. Both unions claim the work, citing various contracts and collective bargaining agreements. In August 2012, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision concluding that the employees represented by the IBEW are entitled to the work. Despite that ruling, the ILWU and two of its locals have continued to file and process grievances against employers serving as carriers at the port, seeking lost wages for work assigned to the IBEW. The ILWU also filed a claim against the IBEW in federal court under the Labor-Management Relations Act.

In granting the petition for injunctive relief from the NLRB’s Regional Office in Seattle late Wednesday, November 22, 2012, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon found that, by filing grievances and seeking enforcement of subsequent awards despite the Board’s decision, the ILWU had the unlawful secondary object of pressuring shipping carriers to stop doing business with the Port of Portland. He enjoined the union from filing, processing, maintaining, prosecuting, or threatening grievances or new lawsuits in the matter against the union as well as the carrier employers. With respect to the dispute with IBEW, the court ruled that the continued filing of the grievances against the IBEW constituted an unfair labor practice because the NLRB ruling already had recognized the IBEW as the authorized representative of the covered employees performing the work.

Concerning his decisions to also bar the ILWU from suing and filing charges against the employing carriers that have been caught in the war between the two unions, the Court issued a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the litigation. The court noted that the question of whether the NLRB ruling prohibited the carrier employers from subcontracting work covered by the NLRB order could not be permanently resolved based in the facts on the record, but that the IBEW had produced sufficient evidence of likely success on merits and irreparable harm to justify the court’s issuance of a temporary injunction.

While federal courts rarely enjoin unions under the National Labor Relations Act, the federal court in this matter found in light of the NLRB ruling in favor of the other union, the court’s decision in favor of the IBEW allows the IBEW to move forward for the time being as the representative of the workers. Concurrently, the court’s decision allows the employers caught between the two unions to continue operations for the time being by assigning work to the IBEW workers unless and until the ILWU proves its entitlement to that work.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About Ms. Stamer

A Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney and 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 24 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.

Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other labor and 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 concerning 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, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press 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 registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

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, 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 at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

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 at here or e-mailing this information here.

Comments Off on Rare Court Order Telling Union To Stop Filing Grievances Example Of Employer Risks When Caught Between Competiting Unions | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: Employer, NLRA, NLRB, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS OKs Retirement Plans Allowing Plan Loans & Hardship Withdrawals To Hurricane Sandy Victims

November 23, 2012

Retirement plan fiduciaries of plans covering participants impacted by Hurricane Sandy seeking loans or hardship withdrawals received some welcome guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The IRS announced November 16 that 401(k)s and similar employer-sponsored retirement plans can make loans and hardship distributions to victims of Hurricane Sandy and members of their families. Read News Release IR-2012-93. For more information, read Announcement 2012-44.

Plan fiduciaries dealing with requests or wishing to offer this option to participants affected by Hurricane Sandy should check this guidance along with existing plan terms and associated loan and hardship withdrawal rules to confirm that their plan terms contain all necessary provisions to use this guidance and their plan’s loan or hardship withdrawal provisions before moving forward. Assuming that the plan contains appropriate provisions and the necessary requirements are met,the guidance says plan fiduciaries can authorize these requests.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. 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 24 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 concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on IRS OKs Retirement Plans Allowing Plan Loans & Hardship Withdrawals To Hurricane Sandy Victims | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: 401(k), Employee Benefits, Employers, hardship withdrawals, Hurricane Sandy, plan loans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Agencies Release ACA Wellness, Adult Pre-Existing Condition, Essential Health Benefits Guidance; Briefing Planned

November 20, 2012

Employers and other health plan sponsors, insurers, and their administrators and service providers should consider the advisability of updating health plan cost projections, plan documents and procedures, communications and other practices in response to new and proposed guidance interpreting federal health plan rules under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) released today (November 20, 2012).

Solutions Law Press, Inc. plans will host a webex executive study group briefing to update its members and other interested persons on this new and proposed guidance on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at Noon Central Time. Interested persons wishing details about registration for this briefing should send an e-mail here.

Guidance Released Today

Earlier today, the Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services issued guidance implementing ACA provisions that make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, as well as guidance impacting wellness and disease management programs and the “essential health benefits” definition that plays a key role in defining the benefits package mandates applicable to exchange and other health plans and policies required to comply with ACA’s mandates. This guidance includes:

A proposed rule that, beginning in 2014, prohibits health insurance companies from discriminating against individuals because of a pre-existing or chronic condition. Under the rule, insurance companies would be allowed to vary premiums within limits, only based on age, tobacco use, family size and geography. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to any American because of a pre-existing condition or from charging higher premiums to certain enrollees because of their current or past health problems, gender, occupation, and small employer size or industry that the agencies intend to ensure that people for whom coverage would otherwise be unaffordable and young adults have access to a catastrophic coverage plan in the individual market. See HHS Proposed Regulation – Health Insurance Market Rules available here;
A proposed rule outlining policies and standards for coverage of essential health benefits, while giving states more flexibility to implement the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are a core set of benefits that would give consumers a consistent way to compare health plans in the individual and small group markets. A companion letter on the flexibility in implementing the essential health benefits in Medicaid was also sent to states. Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation available here; and
A proposed rule implementing and expanding employment-based wellness programs that the agencies intend to promote health and help control health care spending, while prohibiting what the agencies consider unfair underwriting practices that impermissibly discriminate based on health status. See Proposed regulations here; Study available here; Fact Sheet available here.

With this guidance impacting key plan design and cost concerns, employers and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and administrators, insurers and their vendors will need to act quickly to evaluate the potential implications of this guidance in light of already existing rules and enforcement positions, their plan design and costs, and market and other factors.

Today’s Guidance Just Tip of Iceberg

The guidance published today is the first in an expected deluge of regulatory pronouncements that HHS, DOL, the Internal Revenue Service and state insurance agencies are expected to issue as the rush to finalize arrangements and guidance governing the implementation and enforcement of the ACA health care reforms scheduled to take effect and to tweek guidance on provisions already effective under the law. This guidance adds to the extensive list of previously issued guidance previously published by the Agencies since Congress passed ACA. With the election behind the US and the Supreme Court having rejected initial challenges by businesses and individuals to the employer and individual mandates last Summer, employers and insurers now must get cracking to update their programs and cost estimates to comply with both existing and new guidance while keeping a close eye out for potential changes to ACA or other federal or state health coverage laws as the new Congress is expected to continue to discuss refinements or other changes when the new Congress begins work in January 2013.

What Should Employers Do To Cope With These & Other Health Plan Mandates?

Facing the operational and financial challenges of meeting these mandates, many business leaders continue report significant concern about what they should do to respond to these requirements. For some practical steps that businesses confronting these issues should take to cope with ACA and other health plan responsibilities, check out the “12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now” article by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer in the October 26, 2012 online edition of Texas CEO Magazine. To read the full article, see here.

Clearly in light of the new guidance, employers, insurers, health plan fiduciaries and their service providers need to act quickly to familiarize themselves with the guidance and make any need adjustments to their plans, communications, practices and budgets warranted by the new guidance and remain vigilent for and prepared to do the same with other guidance and reform proposals as it is released.

Beyond responding to the new guidance and other future developments, most health plan sponsors, insurers, administrators and other fiduciaries, and their vendors also should consider conducting this specific analysis and update of their health benefit programs in the context of a broader strategy.

In her 12-Steps Article, Ms. Stamer writes, “While most employers and insurers of employment-based group health plans view with great concern radically expanded health plan responsibilities taking effect in 2014, many are failing to take steps critical to manage exposures and costs already arising from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal health plan regulations.”

In the article, Ms Stamer discusses the following 12 steps that she suggests most businesses consider to help catch up with current responsibilities and to help their business manage future costs and responsibilities:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) They Wear
Know What Rules Apply, and How They Affect a Group Health Plan
Review and Update Health Plan Documents to Meet Requirements and Manage Exposure
Update the Plan For Changing Compliance Requirements and Enhanced Defensibility
Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation and Processes, and Follow Them
Ensure the Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in a Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner
Prepare For ACA’s Expanded Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements
Select, Contract and Manage Vendors With Care
Help Plan Members Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training and Supportive Tools
Pack The Parachute and Locate The Nearest Exit Doors
Get Moving On Compliance and Risk Management Issues
Provide Input On Affordable Care Act Rules

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About Ms. Stamer

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now No Matter Who Wins the Election

October 29, 2012

Business leaders concerned about what to do to manage health benefit costs, responsibilities and liabilities over the next year and to position to cope with impending shifts in the health plan regulatory landscape ahead should check out the “12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now” article by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer in the October 26, 2012 online edition of Texas CEO Magazine.

Nationally recognized for quarter century of work advising businesses and governments about health benefit and other employee benefits and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer says regardless of who wins the Presidential election next week, employers need to get moving to deal with current health plan obligations and exposures and brace for new future challenges.

Ms. Stamer writes, “While most employers and insurers of employment-based group health plans view with great concern radically expanded health plan responsibilities taking effect in 2014, many are failing to take steps critical to manage exposures and costs already arising from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal health plan regulations.”

In the article, Ms Stamer discusses the following 12 steps that she suggests most businesses consider to help catch up with current responsibilities and to help position their business to anticipate and manage future costs and responsibilities:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) They Wear
Know What Rules Apply, and How They Affect a Group Health Plan
Review and Update Health Plan Documents to Meet Requirements and Manage Exposure
Update the Plan For Changing Compliance Requirements and Enhanced Defensibility
Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation and Processes, and Follow Them
Ensure the Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in a Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner
Prepare For ACA’s Expanded Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements
Select, Contract and Manage Vendors With Care
Help Plan Members Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training and Supportive Tools
Pack The Parachute and Locate The Nearest Exit Doors
Get Moving On Compliance and Risk Management Issues
Provide Input On Affordable Care Act Rules

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now No Matter Who Wins the Election | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Boost Employee Recognition of Value Of Employer & Other Retirement Savings Tools & Plans

October 22, 2012

Studies suggest that employees need to save an estimated 40% of current earnings to have sufficient savings to fund the anticipated cost to keep up their lifestyle post retirement for their expected post retirement life expectancy. Although times are tough, American workers need to understand the importance of taking advantage of employer sponsored and other retirement saving and funding tools. Here is a free Department of Labor resource that employers might want to include in their retirement education toolkit.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help reviewing or responding to the defined benefit plan funding or other employee benefit, compensation or employment regulations or other related matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, an American College of Employee Benefits Counsel Fellow, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co_Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, current TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, Vice Chair, and Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising and representing employers, health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about employment, employee benefit, compensation, and a wide range of other performance, legal and operational risk management practices and concerns. As a part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients to manage risks and defend practices under a wide range of laws and circumstances. Her experience includes extensive work advising and representing employers, plans, plan fiduciaries, trustees, investors, and others about managing and resolving risks relating to distressed pension and other employee benefit plans, downsizing and other workforce re-engineering and other similar matters. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, testifies, speaks and consults extensively on other employment and employee benefit risk management practices and concerns for the ABA, World At Work, SHRM, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. An Editorial Advisory Board member and contributing author of HR.com, Insurance Thought Leaders, Employee Benefit News and many other publications, her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

Other Resources & Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Boost Employee Recognition of Value Of Employer & Other Retirement Savings Tools & Plans | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans | Tagged: defined benefit plan, disclosure, ERISA, funding, Labor Department, notices, PBGC, pension plans, reporting, underfunded plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB’s Nailing of Bel Air Hotel Reminder RIFs, Other Reengineering & Transactions Impacting Workforce Requirement Proper Risk Management

October 5, 2012

Severance Deals Get Hotel Bel-Air Nailed By NLRB For Labor Law Violations

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that nails Hotel Bel-Air (Hotel) for offering severance packages to unionized workers highlights one of a range of potentially costly missteps that businesses conducting reductions in force or other re-engineering risk if they fail to properly understand and manage legal requirements when designing and implementing the change.

Since labor and other workforce-related risks are long-standing, some businesses, their leaders and consultants may be tempted to assume that prior experience means these are handled. The fact specific nature of the risks and changing rules and enforcement, however, makes it critical not to be over-confident. Legal and operational mismanagement of these risks can disrupt achievement of the purpose of the change and add significant added cost and exposure for the business and its management. Proper use of qualified legal counsel as part of the process is important both to help identify and properly manage risk and to leverage attorney-client privilege to help shield sensitive communications in the planning and implementation of these activities from discovery.

Employer’s Obligations To Negotiate & Deal With Union

Once a union is recognized as the certified representative of employees in a workplace, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits the employer from unilaterally changing term and conditions of employment or from going around the union to bargain directly with employees over layoffs, the effects of layoffs and other material terms and conditions of employment. As part of this responsibility, the NLRA and other federal and state laws generally require that employers provide notification to the union of planned reductions in force, plant closings or other operational changes that might impact the workforce and bargain in good faith with the union before conducting layoffs, or offering or making in work rules, compensation, severance or other benefits or other terms or conditions of employment.

In general, an employer’s duty to bargain with a union generally also continues to apply when the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer expires unless and until the parties reach agreement or impasse. While negotiations continue, the employer’s obligation to refrain from making unilateral changes generally encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation unless and until an overall impasse has been reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole. See Pleasantview Nursing Home, 335 NLRB 96 (2001) citing Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991). The NLRB considers negotiations to be in progress, and will not find a genuine impasse to exist, until the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be “futile” or that there is “no realistic possibility that continuation of discussion . . . would be fruitful.” Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 343 NLRB 542 556 (2004).

Because the existence of impasse is a factual determination that depends on a variety of factors, including the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations, the good faith of the parties, the importance of the disputed issues, the parties’ bargaining history, and the length of their negotiations, Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), parties to the negotiation often do not necessarily agree when they have reached impasse. As the September 28 decision by the NLRB against the Hotel shows, employers that act unilaterally based on an overly optimistic determination of impasse suffer significant financial and other operational and legal risks for engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA.

NLRB Nails Hotel Bel-Air For Failing To Bargain, Offering Severance Around Union

In its September 28, 2012 Bel-Air Hotel Decision, the NLRB ruled the Hotel engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA when it offered severance packages to laid off workers in return for the workers’ waiver of recall rights without bargaining to impasse with the union representing its workers, UNITE HERE Local 11 (Union), about the effects of the temporary shutdown.

The NLRB also ruled the Hotel engaged in unlawful direct dealing by contacting the employees about severance packages without going through the Union even though the Hotel’s contract with the union had expired when the Hotel contacted the laid off union employees to offer severance in return for waivers. As a result, the NLRB ordered the Hotel to rescind the waiver and release forms signed by the Union members and to meet and bargain with the Union on these terms.

Bel-Air Hotel Decision Background

The NLRB order against the Hotel resulted from unfair labor practice charges that the Union filed against the Hotel after the Hotel offered severance packages directly to workers in exchange for the workers’ waiver of their recall rights while the workers were laid off during the Hotel’s temporary closure for renovations in 2009.

Before the Hotel offered the severance package directly to the laid off workers, the Hotel and the Union bargained for nine months about the terms of a separation agreement and recall rights for employees who would lose their jobs during a planned 2-year shutdown of the facility for renovation. In April, 2010, the Hotel gave the Union what it said was the “last, best, and final offer” on severance pay for unit employees laid off during the temporary renovation closure. While the Union and the Hotel did talk after the Hotel made this final offer. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach an agreement before their existing collective bargaining agreement expired or before the Hotel shut down the facility for renovation. After the shutdown, the Union and the Hotel stopped formal negotiations but had some “off the record” informal communications until June. With no resolution by the end of June, the Hotel moved forward unilaterally to offer severance directly to the laid off employees as outlined in its final offer.

Although the facility was closed and the employees already laid off when the Hotel’s contract with the Union expired, the Union claimed the Hotel remained obligated to negotiate with the Union. The Union said a flurry of “off-the-record” discussions between the Hotel and the Union leading up to and after the termination showed the parties had not reached impasse. The Union also separately charged that the Hotel violated the NLRA by going around the Union to directly contact employees to offer severance payments in exchange for waiving their right to return to their jobs when the Hotel reopened after renovation.

In response to unfair labor practices charges filed by the Union, Hotel management among other things argued that the Union no longer represented the employees when it offered severance and because the parties’ contract had expired and the parties were at impasse when the Hotel made the offer.

Union Remained Representative Despite Layoff & Temporary Facilities Shutdown

The NLRB found “meritless” the Hotel’s effort to rely upon the NLRB’s decision in Sterling Processing Corp., 291 NLRB 208 (1988) to support the Hotel’s claim that it had no duty to bargain or extend the severance offers through the Union because it made the unilateral severance offer when the facility was closed and the employees were already laid off.

In Sterling, the NLRB found the employer’s unilateral modification of preclosure wages and working conditions did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA because when the employer acted unilaterally, there were no employees for the union to represent because when the employer took its unilateral action, the employer already had permanently closed the facility and terminated all employees with no reasonable expectation of reemployment.

The NLRB ruled that the circumstances when the Hotel acted were distinguishable from Sterling because the unit employees on layoff from the Hotel retained a reasonable expectation of recall from layoff since the Hotel’s closure was only temporary and the Hotel had only laid off, and not yet discharged the employees when it made the unilateral severance offers. According to the NLRB, the terms of the severance offer evidenced the existence of an expectation of recall because under the terms of that offer, employees who accepted a severance payment waived their recall rights. See, Rockwood Energy & Mineral Corp., 299 NLRB 1136, 1139 fn. 11 (1990), enfd. 942 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1991)(finding that lengthy suspension of production did not relieve employer of its bargaining obligation where laid off employees had “some expectation of recall,” and distinguishing Sterling).

No Impasse Because Of Informal “Off The Record” Communications

The Hotel also separately and unsuccessfully argued that its direct offer of severance benefits to laid off employees was not an unfair labor practice because the parties had bargained to impasse before the offer was made. In response to the Union’s claim that a series of “off-the-record” exchanges between the Union and Hotel after the contract expired reflected a continuation of bargaining, the Hotel argued that an impasse existed because the Union was not engaged in good faith negotiations and there was not any possibility that the informal discussions between the Union and the Hotel would result in any fruitful change in the parties positions.

In an effort to support its position, the Hotel management argued that the Union’s negotiation behavior with other Los Angeles hotels showed the Union had a practice of “artificially extend[ing] negotiations in bad faith” that supported the Hotel’s claim that continued negotiation would be futile. The NLRB rejected this argument too. It said evidence that the Union did not bargain in good faith to string out negotiations when negotiating with other businesses as part of a campaign to coerce all hotels city wide to agree to a standard contract had no probative relevance for purposes of determining if the Hotel and the Union had bargained to impasse in their negotiations and did not prove bad faith by the Union for purposes of its negotiation with the Hotel.

Having rejected these and other Hotel arguments and evidence of impasse, the NLRB ruled that the evidence indicated that the parties continued communications had narrowed their differences before and after the Hotel made its last final offer on April 9. Given this progress, the NLRB ruled that parties’ participation in informal off the record discussions well into June were sufficient to show the existence of some possibility that continued negotiations might result in a fruitful change in the parties position sufficient to obligate the Hotel to continue to bargain with the Union.

NLRB Order Carries Heavy Cost for Bel-Air Hotel

Complying the NLRB’s orders to remedy the breach will be painful and expensive for the Hotel, particularly since by the time the order was issued, the renovation was substantially completed.

To fulfill the requirements of the Order, the Hotel must, among other things:

Bargain with the Union as the recognized and exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees about the effects on bargaining unit employees of the temporary shutdown of the hotel for renovation and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed collective bargaining agreement;
Not deal directly with bargaining unit employees about severance, waiver and release or other terms or arrangements relating to the impact of the temporary shutdown on the bargaining unit employees
Rescind the waiver and release agreements signed by individual bargaining unit employees which included the waiver of rehire rights; and
Post a NLRB-mandated written notice in the workplace for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places.

This means that the Hotel will have to work through issues about how to find positions for employees, if any, who originally agreed to waive their rehire rights who now wish to be rehired, as well as engage in expensive bargaining and the implementation of the terms of any resulting collective bargaining agreement.

Union Duties One of Many Potential HR RIF & Deal Traps

The NLRB’s prounion ruling is unsurprising. Since the Obama Administration took office, its NLRB appointments, rule changes and other activism are intended to and are promoting the strength and efforts of labor. See e.g. Labor Risks Rising For Employers Despite NLRB Loss Of Arizona Secret Ballot Challenge : HR Article by Ms. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer .

Collective bargaining responsibilities like those that resulted in the NLRB order against the Hotel are only one of many potential labor, human resources and benefits-related traps that businesses need to negotiate carefully when planning and executing layoffs or other workforce restructurings in connection with cost or other restructurings, business transactions or other activities impacting the workforce.

Some examples of other issues and risks that businesses involved in changes impacting their workforce also may need to manage include but are not limited to the need to manage discrimination, federal and state leave, whistleblower and retaliation, and other general employment-related legal risks and responsibilities; to give Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN) or state law required plant closing or other notifications to workers, unions, government officials, vendors, customers, lenders or other creditors, insurers or others; to disclose, review, modify or terminate contracts, employee benefit plan documents, communications and other materials; to modify fiduciary, officer, board or other assignments and other related insurance, indemnification, bonding and related arrangements; to comply with employee benefit and compensation related plan document, fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, communication, benefit funding or distribution, reporting and disclosure and other Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Internal Revenue Code, securities and other laws and regulations; privacy, trade secret, and other data integration, confidentiality, and information security and management concerns; Sarbanes-Oxley and other securities, accounting or related requirements; system and data integration; and many others.

Because improper handling of these or other responsibilities in connection with these responsibilities can significantly undermine the businesses’ ability to realize the financial and operational goals behind the action, as well as expose the business to potentially costly liability, businesses anticipating or conducting reductions in the force or other activities that will impact their workforce should seek advice and help from qualified legal counsel experienced with these concerns early to mitigate these concerns.

If you have any questions or need help with these or other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on NLRB’s Nailing of Bel Air Hotel Reminder RIFs, Other Reengineering & Transactions Impacting Workforce Requirement Proper Risk Management | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Management, NLLRB, NLRA, reductions in force, Severance, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Employment Disability Risk Management As Obama Declares 12/10 National Disability Employment Awareness Month

October 1, 2012

In his proclaimation today, President Obama reaffirmed his often stated commitment to the aggressive enforcement of disability laws and other efforts to promote opportunities for disabled individuals, stating:

“[My Administration remains committed to helping our businesses, schools, and communities support our entire workforce. To meet this challenge,… we are striving to make it easier to get and keep those jobs by improving compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

As the administration marks the month, U.S. employers and other business leaders can expect the Obama Administration will be stepping up its already aggressive outreach to disabled Americans to promote awareness of their disability law rights and tools for asserting and enforcing these rights.

Business Faces Growing Employment Disability Exposures

As part of his administration’s commitment, the Obama Administration has moved to aggressively enforce the disability and accommodations of teh Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal disability discrimination laws. The reach and effectiveness of these efforts has been enhanced by statutory and regulatory changes that require employers to exercise greater efforts to meet their compliance obligations and manage their disability and other discrimination risks.

ADA Exposures Heightened

The ADA, for instance, generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

Recent enforcement, regulatory and other activities by the EEOC demonstrate that the EEOC is enthusiastically moving forward to exercise its regulatory and enforcement powers under these enhanced ADA provisions to tighten requirements for employers and to enforce its rules. See e.g., Leprino Foods To Pay $550K To Settle OFCCP Charge Pre-Hire Screening Test Illegally Discriminated « As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released; Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries; Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Rehabilitation Act Risks For Government Contractors

Beyond the generally applicable risks applicable to all employers of more than 15 employees under the ADA, federal and state government contractors face additional responsibilities and risks.

OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA.

While many government contractors may be tempted to become complacent about OFCCP exposures based on reports of the OFCCP’s relatively low enforcement in the past, see Report Says OFCCP Enforcement Data Show Infrequent Veteran, Disability Bias Findings | Bloomberg BNA recent enforcement data documents OFCCP is getting much more serious and aggressive about auditing and enforcing compliance with its affirmative action and other requirements against government contractors under the Obama Administration. See, OFCCP Enforcement Data is Available on a New DOL Website. See also, Affirmative Action Update: OFCCP Enforcement Statistics Show Increase in Violations. The readiness of OFCCP to enforce its rules is illustrated by the settlement of an OFCCP action filed against federal contractor Nash Finch Co. (Nash Finch) announceed last week. Under the settlement, Nash Finch to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to certain women applicants who OFCCP charged Nash rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company’s distribution facility in Lumberton, Minnesota. See Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

These government contractor disability discrimination risks are particularly acute where the government contractor works on or provides supplies on contacts or projects funded in whole or in part by monies provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures. See, e.g. Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

Businesses Should Act To Manage Risks

The ADAAA amendments, the Rehabilitation Act’s expanded reach, and the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify and claim protection as disabled under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other disability discrimination laws.

In light of these and other developments and risks, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC, OFCCP and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment Attorney and Management Consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469..

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource, employee benefits and management experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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 at here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net.

Comments Off on Tighten Employment Disability Risk Management As Obama Declares 12/10 National Disability Employment Awareness Month | ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Retaliation, USERRA, VEVRRA | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Disability Discrimination Defenses As National Disability Employment Awareness Month Promises To Whip Up New Claims & Awareness

October 1, 2012

President Obama’s declaration today (October 1, 2012) of October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month reminds business that U.S. businesses and their leaders need to tighten their disability discrimination risk management and compliance in light of the Obama Administration’s emphasis on aggressively interpreting and enforcing disability discrimination laws, rising private plaintiff lawsuits and other recent regulatory and judicial changes. With the Administration expected to step up further its already substantial educational outreach to the disabled and their advocates, U.S. employers should brace for this month’s celebration to fuel even more disability discrimination claims and other activity by the disabled and their activists.

Since taking office, President Obama has make enforcing and expanding the rights of the disabled in employment and other areas a leading priority.

In his proclamation today, President Obama reaffirmed his often stated commitment to the aggressive enforcement of disability laws and other efforts to promote opportunities for disabled individuals, stating:

Business Faces Growing Employment Disability Exposures

As part of his administration’s commitment, the Obama Administration has moved to aggressively enforce the disability and accommodations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal disability discrimination laws. The reach and effectiveness of these efforts has been enhanced by statutory and regulatory changes that require employers to exercise greater efforts to meet their compliance obligations and manage their disability and other discrimination risks.

ADA Exposures Heightened

The ADA, for instance, generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they experienced prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to prove disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that part of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

Recent enforcement, regulatory and other activities by the EEOC show that the EEOC is enthusiastically moving forward to exercise its regulatory and enforcement powers under these enhanced ADA provisions to tighten requirements for employers and to enforce its rules. See e.g., Leprino Foods To Pay $550K To Settle OFCCP Charge Pre-Hire Screening Test Illegally Discriminated « As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released; Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries; Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Rising Rehabilitation Act Risks For Government Contractors

Beyond the generally applicable risks applicable to all employers of more than 15 employees under the ADA, federal and state government contractors face more responsibilities and risks.

Subject to limited exceptions, government contractors providing services or supplies on ARRA or other government-funded contracts or projects must comply both with generally applicable employment discrimination requirements and special statutory and contractual nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and recordkeeping requirements applicable government contractors. For instance, federal law generally requires government contractors to comply with the special equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246 (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Pursuant to these laws, business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, generally must follow a number of statutory and contractual requirements to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP generally audits and enforces these requirements. Memo to Funding Recipients: Compliance with Applicable Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders.

These government contractor disability discrimination risks are particularly acute where the government contractor works on or provides supplies on contacts or projects funded in whole or in part by monies provided under ARRA. When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures. See, e.g. Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

GINA & Other Medical Information Nondiscrimination & Privacy Risks

Employers also need to use care to ensure that their hiring and other employment practices, as well as their employee benefits, workers’ compensation and wellness practices are up to date and properly managed to mitigate exposures under laws like the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the ADA’s medical information privacy requirements, as well as the privacy and nondiscrimination rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and other relevant federal and state laws.

Signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008 and in effect since November 21, 2009, for instance, Title VII of GINA amended the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and to restrict the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like now available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to HIPAA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009. Under these HIPAA and GINA rules, health plans generally may not make certain medical inquiries or discriminate against employees or their family members based on family or individual medical history or genetic information. In addition, health plans and others are required to safeguard personal medical information and may only share that information only under very limited circumstances requiring specific documentation be in place and that the parties can prove that the access and use of that information is appropriately restricted. Violation of these and other rules can have significant civil and in some cases even criminal liabilities for companies, plans, plan fiduciaries and company officials that take part in violations of these rules.

Businesses Should Act To Manage Risks

The ADAAA amendments, the Rehabilitation Act’s expanded reach, and the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will have fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify and claim protection as disabled under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other disability discrimination laws.

All U.S. businesses should review and tighten the adequacy of their existing compliance and risk management practices to promote and document compliance. These efforts should focus on all relevant hiring, recruitment, promotion, compensation, recordkeeping and reporting policies and practices internally, as well as those of any recruiting agencies, subcontractors or other business partners whose actions might impact on compliance.

In light of these and other developments and risks, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriately assess and identify the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that management might be tempted to assume fall outside the ADA’s scope.

Likewise, businesses should be ready for the EEOC, OFCCP and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

In the face of the rising emphasis of OFCCP, the EEOC and other federal and state agencies on these audit and enforcement activities, government contractors should exercise additional compliance and risk management efforts beyond these generally recommended steps. Among other things, these steps should include the following:

Government contractors and subcontractors should specifically review their existing or proposed contracts and involvements to identify projects or contracts which may involve federal or state contracts or funding that could trigger responsibility. In this respect, businesses should conduct well-documented inquiries when proposing and accepting contracts to ensure that potential obligations as a government contractor are not overlooked because of inadequate intake procedures. Businesses also should keep in mind that ARRA and other federal program funds often may be filtered through a complex maze of federal grants or program funding to states or other organizations, which may pass along government contractor status and liability when subcontracting for services as part of the implementation of broader programs. Since the existence of these obligations often is signaled by contractual representations in the contracts with these parties, careful review of contractual or bid specifications and commitments is essential. However, it also generally is advisable also to inquire about whether the requested products or services are provided pursuant to programs or contracts subject to these requirements early in the process.
In addition to working to identify contracts and arrangements that are covered by OFCCP or other requirements, government contractors and other businesses also should reconfirm and continuously monitor the specific reporting, affirmative action, and other requirements that apply to any programs that may be subject to OFCCP requirements to ensure that they fully understand and implement appropriate procedures to comply with these conditions as well as pass along the obligation to make similarly necessary arrangements to any subcontractors or suppliers that the government contractor involves as a subcontractor.
Throughout the course of the contract, the government contractor also should take steps to maintain and file all required reports and monitor and audit operational compliance with these and other requirements.
The organization should develop and administer appropriate procedures for monitoring and investigating potential compliance concerns and maintaining documentation of that activity. Any known potential deficiencies or complaints should be promptly investigated and redressed with the assistance of qualified counsel in a prompt manner to mitigate potential risks.
Documentation should be carefully retained and organized on a real time and continuous basis to faciliate efficiency and effectiveness in completing required reports, monitoring compliance indicators and responding to OFCCP, EEOC or private plaintiff charges as well as other compliance inquiries.
Any audit inquiries or charges should be promptly referred to qualified legal counsel for timely evaluation and response.
When available and affordable, management should consider securing appropriate employment practices liability coverage, indemnification from business partners and other liability protection and assurance to help mitigate investigagtion and defense costs.
Board members or other senior management should include periodic review of compliance in their agenda.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of help with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment Attorney and Management Consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469.767.8872.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to meet their business and operational goals and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource, employee benefits and management experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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 at here.

Comments Off on Tighten Disability Discrimination Defenses As National Disability Employment Awareness Month Promises To Whip Up New Claims & Awareness | ADA, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability Plans, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, VEVRRA | Tagged: ADA, Disability, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, GINA, Human Resources, Rehabilitation Act, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks

September 29, 2012

Federal contractor Nash Finch Co. (Nash Finch) will pay $188,500 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to certain women applicants who the U.S Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) charged Nash rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company’s distribution facility in Lumberton, Minnesota under a consent decree approved by an OFCCP administrative law judge this week.

Nash Finch Settlement Highlights

Minneapolis-based and the second-largest wholesale food distributor in the U.S., Nash Finch distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.

The consent decree resolves an OFCCP administrative action commenced after OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch’s employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. OFCCP asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006. See Solis v. Nash Finch Co., OFCCP Case Number: 2011-OFC-00004. Under the consent decree, Nash Finch will pay $188,500 in back pay and interest to the 84 women. In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.

Reflective of the growing emphasis of OFCCP and other federal agencies on audit and enforcement of compliance with federal employment discrimination and affirmative action laws, the Nash Finch charges and resultant settlement highlight that the Obama Administration’s emphasis on employment discrimination and other civil rights laws expansion and enforcement is resulting in increased liability for employers that fail to take appropriate steps to manage compliance related risks.

Settlements Remind ARRA & Other Federal Government Contractors To Act To Defend Against Heightened Requirements & Enforcement

The OFCCP action and settlement against Nash Finch and other recent OFCCP and other employment discrimination law enforcement actions and settlements against government contractors and other U.S. employers remind U.S. businesses that provide services or supplies directly or as subcontractors on federally funded projects or contracts to review and tighten their employment discrimination, affirmative action and other employment practices in light of the Obama Administration’s heightened emphasis on auditing and enforcing OFCCP and other nondiscrimination and affirmative action rules.

While all U.S businesses face heightened exposures to discrimination-related enforcement risks and liability under the Obama Administration’s enforcement policies, businesses providing services or supplies directly or as subcontractors on projects funded in whole or in part by monies provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) or other federally funded projects or contracts are particularly at risk. See e.g., Leprino Foods To Pay $550K To Settle OFCCP Charge Pre-Hire Screening Test Illegally Discriminated « As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released; Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries; Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Subject to limited exceptions, government contractors providing services or supplies on ARRA or other government funded contracts or projects must comply both with generally applicable employment discrimination requirements and special statutory and contractual nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and recordkeeping requirements applicable government contractors. For instance, federal law generally requires government contractors to comply with the special equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246 (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Pursuant to these laws, business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, generally must follow a number of statutory and contractual requirements to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP generally audits and enforces these requirements. Memo to Funding Recipients: Compliance with Applicable Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders. OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA. While many government contractors may be tempted to become complacent about OFCCP exposures based on reports of the OFCCP’s relatively low enforcement in the past, see Report Says OFCCP Enforcement Data Show Infrequent Veteran, Disability Bias Findings | Bloomberg BNA recent enforcement data documents OFCCP is getting much more serious and aggressive about auditing and enforcing compliance with its affirmative action and other requirements against government contractors under the Obama Administration. See, OFCCP Enforcement Data is Available on a New DOL Website. See also, Affirmative Action Update: OFCCP Enforcement Statistics Show Increase in Violations.

Government Contractors On ARRA Funded Projects Particularly Exposed

When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures.

For one thing, the range of businesses required to comply with OFCCP’s equal employment opportunity requirements for government contractors is broader. Government contractors who sometimes qualify as exempt from certain OFCCP rules may not qualify as exempt when working on ARRA funded projects. Government contractors that on other types of federally-funded projects might qualify as exempt from certain OFCCP requirements often are unaware that the range of federal contractors required to comply with the OFCCP equal employment opportunity and related rules of ARRA is much broader than often applies for federal projects funded from other sources. Smaller government contractors run the risk of unknowingly incurring liability by mistakenly assuming that the small size of their contract exempts them from otherwise applicable OFCCP requirements. Consequently, before relying on any assumed exemption, a government contractor providing goods or services for ARRA-funded project directly or as a subcontractor should specifically verify the applicability of those exemptions and document that analysis.

Furthermore, all government contractors on ARRA-funded projects need to understand that they operate subject to heightened compliance and enforcement scrutiny. The OFCCP particularly scrutinizes government contractor equal employment opportunity and other civil rights requirements on ARRA funded projects. The “Procedures for Scheduling and Conducting Compliance Evaluations of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Funded Contractors” issued July 7, 2009. See OFCCP Order No. ADM 0901/SEL the “ARRA Procedures”) subject government contractors on ARRA funded projects to special rules and heightened OFCCP oversight. OFCCP has established separate scheduling procedures to provide for compliance evaluations of ARRA funded contractors separate from those usually applicable to government contractors because ARRA also obligates OFCCP separately to track its ARRA-related and non-ARRA-related enforcement activities.

The ARRA Procedures require that Regional, District and Area offices conduct a full compliance evaluation, including a full desk audit and onsite review, of every ARRA funded contractor establishment scheduled, even in the absence of systemic discrimination indicators. Normally applied by OFCCP to non-ARRA government contract reviews, Active Case Management (ACM) procedures normally allow OFCCP to conduct only an abbreviated desk audit in the absence of systematic discrimination indicators in non-ARRA compliance evaluations. These ACM procedures will not be used in ARRA compliance evaluations.

Due to the special nature of ARRA, OFCCP also has indicated that the ARRA compliance evaluations will not apply the following scheduling exceptions typically applicable in non-ARRA contract compliance reviews. For instance, OFCCP ARRA procedures state:

No more than 25 establishments per contractor exception: Presently, for contractors with multiple establishments, the Federal Contractor Scheduling System (FCSS) limits the number of compliance evaluations scheduled to 25 new evaluations during a scheduling cycle. The 25-establishment limit does not apply to ARRA compliance evaluations.
Two year exception: Traditionally, contractor establishments that have been reviewed by OFCCP are excepted from further review for a 24-month period. Under ARRA scheduling procedures, ARRA funded contractor establishments may be eligible for an ARRA compliance evaluation even if they have been reviewed within the previous 24 months. However, pre-award clearance is not required for contractor establishments reviewed by OFCCP within the past 24 months.

However, ARRA scheduling procedures will apply the following scheduling exceptions:

ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an FCSS compliance evaluation will be excepted from scheduling and review under ARRA procedures for six months from the date of the FCSS case closure.
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA compliance evaluation will not be subject to another ARRA evaluation.
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA evaluation will also be excepted from scheduling for a standard OFCCP compliance evaluation, pursuant to FCSS, for 24 months from the date of closure of the ARRA compliance evaluation.

ARRA funded contractors also are subject to other special pre-award clearance, pre-award intake, pre-award classification and other special procedures. The ARRA Procedures also set for special requirements particularly applicable to construction contracts funded by ARRA.

The special procedures and heightened compliance review procedures provided for under the ARRA Procedures indicate that government contractors or subcontractors providing services or supplies on projects funded with ARRA funds will want to place special attention on compliance with OFCCP and other federal equal employment opportunity and other employment regulation compliance.

Government Contractors, Other US Employers Urged To Act To Manage Exposures

In the face of the rising emphasis of OFCCP, the EEOC and other federal and state agencies on these audit and enforcement activities, government contractors and other U.S. businesses should act to position themselves to defend against likely challenges and scrutiny. All government contractors and other businesses should review and tighten the adequacy of their existing compliance and risk management practices to promote and document compliance. These efforts should focus on all relevant hiring, recruitment, promotion, compensation, recordkeeping and reporting policies and practices internally, as well as those of any recruiting agencies, subcontractors or other business partners whose actions might impact on compliance. Among other things, these steps should include the following:

Government contractors and subcontractors should specifically review their existing or proposed contracts and involvements to identify projects or contracts which may involve federal or state contracts or funding that could trigger responsibility. In this respect, businesses should conduct well-documented inquiries when proposing and accepting contracts to ensure that potential obligations as a government contractor are not overlooked because of inadequate intake procedures. Businesses also should keep in mind that ARRA and other federal program funds often may be filtered through a complex maze of federal grants or program funding to states or other organizations, which may pass along government contractor status and liability when subcontracting for services as part of the implementation of broader programs. Since the existence of these obligations often is signaled by contractual representations in the contracts with these parties, careful review of contractual or bid specifications and commitments is essential. However, it also generally is advisable also to inquire about whether the requested products or services are provided pursuant to programs or contracts subject to these requirements early in the process.
In addition to working to identify contracts and arrangements that are covered by OFCCP or other requirements, government contractors and other businesses also should reconfirm and continuously monitor the specific reporting, affirmative action, and other requirements that apply to any programs that may be subject to OFCCP requirements to ensure that they fully understand and implement appropriate procedures to comply with these conditions as well as pass along the obligation to make similarly necessary arrangements to any subcontractors or suppliers that the government contractor involves as a subcontractor.
Throughout the course of the contract, the government contractor also should take steps to maintain and file all required reports and monitor and audit operational compliance with these and other requirements.
The organization should develop and administer appropriate procedures for monitoring and investigating potential compliance concerns and maintaining documentation of that activity. Any known potential deficiencies or complaints should be promptly investigated and redressed with the assistance of qualified counsel in a prompt manner to mitigate potential risks.
Documentation should be carefully retained and organized on a real time and continuous basis to faciliate efficiency and effectiveness in completing required reports, monitoring compliance indicators and responding to OFCCP, EEOC or private plaintiff charges as well as other compliance inquiries.
Any audit inquiries or charges should be promptly referred to qualified legal counsel for timely evaluation and response.
When available and affordable, management should consider securing appropriate employment practices liability coverage, indemnification from business partners and other liability protection and assurance to help mitigate investigagtion and defense costs.
Board members or other senior management should include periodic review of compliance in their agenda.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment, employee benefits, contracting or other risk management or internal controls compliance practices, responding to an OFCCP, EEOC or other government or private plaintiff charge or investigation, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce or compliance management, employee benefits, compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.25M NLRB Backpay Order Highlights Risks of Mismanaging Union Risks In Health Care & Others M&A Deals

September 23, 2012

California nursing home buyer must pay estimated $1.25 million in backpay and interest, recognize union & hire 50 employees of seller following purchase

Last week’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order requiring the buyer of a California nursing home to pay approximately $1.25 million in backpay and interest, rehire 50 employees and recognize the seller’s union reminders buyers of union-organized businesses of some of the significant risks of mishandling union-related obligations in merger and acquisition, bankruptcy and other corporate transactions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other federal labor laws.

Buyer’s Obligations To Honor Seller’s Collective Bargaining Obligations

Under the NLRA, new owners of a union facility that are “successors” of the seller generally must recognize and bargain with the existing union if “the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of employees hired by the new employer were represented by a recently certified bargaining agent.” See NLRB v. Burns Sec. Servs., 406 U.S. 272, 281 (1972).

In assembling its workforce, a successor employer also generally “may not refuse to hire the predecessor’s employees solely because they were represented by a union or to avoid having to recognize a union.” U.S. Marine Corp., 293 NLRB 669, 670 (1989), enfd., 944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1991).

Nasaky, Inc. NLRB Order

Last week’s NLRB Order requires Nasaky, Inc., the buyer of the Yuba Skilled Nursing Center in Yuba City, California, to recognize and honor collective bargaining obligations that the seller Nazareth Enterprises owed the before the sale and rehire and pay backpay and interest to make whole 50 of the seller’s former employees who the NLRB determined Nasaky, Inc. wrongfully refused to hire when it took over the facility from the prior owner, Nazareth Enterprises.

Before Nasaky, Inc. bought the nursing home, many of the employees at the nursing home were represented by the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (Union). After Nasaky, Inc. agreed to buy the facility but before it took control of its operations, Nasaky, Inc. advertised in the media for new workers to staff the facility and told existing employees at the facility that they must reapply to have a chance of keeping their jobs under the new ownership.

When Nasaky, Inc. took operating control of the Facility, facility operations continued as before with the same patients receiving the same services. The main difference was the workforce. The new staff included 90 employees in erstwhile bargaining unit positions, of which forty were former employees of the predecessor employer and fifty were newcomers. Nasaky, Inc. then took the position that the change in the workforce excused it from responsibility for recognizing or bargaining with the Union or honoring the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and seller Nazareth Enterprises.

When the union demanded that Nasaky, Inc. recognize the Union and honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with Nazareth Enterprises, Nasaky, Inc. refused. Instead, Nasaky, Inc. notified the union that it would not allow the Union on its premises, would not honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with the seller, and did not accept any of the predecessor’s terms and conditions of employment. The Union then filed charges with the NLRB, charging that Nazareth Enterprises had breached its obligations as a successor under the NLRA.

After NLRB Regional Director Joseph F. Frankl agreed and issued a complaint, California Administrative Law Judge Gerald Etchingham found all the allegations true based on a two-day hearing. He rejected all of Nasaky’s explanations for why it declined to hire most of those who had worked for the previous employer. See ALJ Decision. Since Nasaky, Inc did not file exceptions, the NLRB ordered Nasaky, Inc. immediately to recognize and bargain with the Union, hire the former employees and make them whole. The amount of backpay and interest is expected to approximate $1.25 million.

Managing Labor Exposures In Business Transactions

The NLRB’s order against Nasaky, Inc. highlights some of the business and operational risks that buyers and sellers can face if labor-management relations are misperceived or mismanaged in connection with business transactions. Because the existence of collective bargaining agreements or other labor obligations can substantially affect the operational flexibility of a buyer, buyers need to investigate and carefully evaluate the potential existence and nature of their obligations as part of their due diligence strategy before the transaction. A well-considered understanding of whether the structure of the transaction is likely to result in the buyer being considered a successor for purposes of union organizing and collective bargaining obligations also is very important so that the buyer and seller can properly appreciate and deal with any resulting responsibilities.

Beyond the potential duty to recognize a seller’s collective bargaining obligations, buyers and sellers also should consider the potential consequences of the proposed transaction on severance, pension, health, layoff and recall and other rights and obligations that may arise. At minimum, the existence of these responsibilities and their attendant costs are likely to impact the course of the negotiations.

When a worksite is union organized, for instance, additional obligations may arise in the handling of reductions in force or other transactions as a result of the union presence. For example, in addition to otherwise applicable responsibilities applicable to non-union affected transaction, the Worker Adjustment Retraining Act (WARN) and other plant closing laws and/or collective bargaining agreements may impose special notification or other requirements before a reduction in force or other transaction related activities.

Similarly, the existence of collective bargaining agreements also may trigger obligations for one or both parties to engage in collective bargaining over contemplated changes in terms and conditions of employment, to provide severance, to accellerate or fund severance, benefits or other obligations, to provide continued health or other coverage, to honor seniority, recall or other rights or deal with a host of other special contractual obligations.

Where the collective bargaining arrangements of the seller currently or in the past have included obligations to contribute to a multiemployer, collectively bargained pension or welfare plan, the buyer and seller also need to consider both the potential for withdrawal liability or other obligations and any opportunities to minimize these exposures in structuring the allocation of the arrangement. In this case, both parties need to recognize that differences exist between the federals for determining when successor liability results under the withdrawal liability rules than typically apply other labor and employment law purposes. While buyers and sellers often presume that the stock versus assess sale distinction that typically applies for many other legal purposes will apply, this can be an expensive mistake in the case of determining a buyer’s obligation to honor the seller’s collective bargaining obligations post deal. Likewise, buyers can be exposed to multiemployer successor liability from asset transactions, although it may be possible to mitigate or avoid such liabilities by incorporating appropriate representations in the sale documents or through other steps. Since these multiemployer withdrawal and contribution liabilities generally attach on a controlled group basis, both parties need to properly appreciate and address these concerns early in the transaction to mitigate their risks and properly value the transaction.

In light of these and other potential labor-related risks that may affect corporate and other business transactions, parties contemplating or participating in these transactions are urged to engage and consult with competent legal counsel with specific experience in such labor management relations and multiemployer benefit plan matters early in the process.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Collective Bargaining, collectively bargained, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Labor-Management, multiemployer health plans, multiemployer pension plans, NLRA, NLRB, Union, withdrawal liability | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released

September 18, 2012

With the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies prioritizing disability discrimination law enforcement, businesses and individuals looking to find solutions to help accommodate persons with disabilities may find a new free app for Apple Devices from the Department of Defense (DOD) Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program helpful.

New DOD Accommodation Apple App & Other Accommodation Aids

The DOD Apple application is an example of the many new resources that the federal government is providing to promote compliance with disability discrimination laws and to help people with disabilities under the Obama Administration.

The DOD Apple application now available in the iTunes App Store lets users browse the latest news and tips on assistive technology, scan CAP’s calendar of events and stay connected to the disability community. DOD says an Android version is coming soon.

CAP works to make the Federal Government a model employer of people with disabilities by providing job accommodations and equal access to electronic and information technology. With disabilities and other discrimination law compliance audit and enforcement rising, this new application provides another timely resource for government contractors and agencies, and other businesses looking to provide accommodations and manage disability risks.

The DOD application is just one of many emerging training and other tools that the agencies are rolling out to promote employment and other opportunities for people with disabilities. The Federal Government is devoting increasing resources to educating the disabled about resources including employment discrimination protections and other aids. The October 10 Work Incentive Seminar Event webinar is another example. To be held on October 10, 2012 from 3 – 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, the webinar is for people who receive Social Security disability benefits and want to learn how the Ticket to Work program can help them earn money and become financially independent. It also will discuss writing a resume, job interview tips, whether or not to discuss your disability with a potential employer and tips for on the job success. Officials invites interested parties to register online or call 1-866-968-7842 (V) or 1-866-833-2967 (TTY/TDD).

Rising Liability & Enforcement Make Accommodation & Other Disability Law Risk Management Critical

Managing disability risks and meeting accommodation obligations is increasingly important as US government agencies place growing emphasis on enforcing disability discrimination laws and regulations that increasingly result in significant liability for U.S. businesses.

For instance, in June, 2012, the U.S. Justice Department announced a $10,250,000 settlement with JPI Construction L.P. (JPI) and six other JPI firms is the largest-ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement. The settlement resolves Justice Department charges the JPI and its affiliates illegally discriminated on the basis of disability in the design and construction of multifamily housing complexes.

Under the settlement of disability charges initiated against JPI a few years ago, JPI will pay $10,250,000 into an accessibility fund to update properties so they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and to increase the availability of housing that is accessible to people with disabilities.

The record settlement follows the reaffirmation of the Obama Administration’s continuing committment to find and punish companies that illegally discriminate or fail to provide required accommodations in violation of Federal disability discrimination laws made by President Obama and others to mark the 13th Anniversary of the June 22, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C.

As part of that anniversary celebration of Olmstead, the Obama Administration reaffirmed its continuing commitment to fight disability discriminated and touted the success of its “significant progress continuing to enforce Olmstead as well as more broadly helping to level the playing field for people with disabilities.”

In Olmstead, the Supreme Court ruled in that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the ADA.

In marking the 13th anniversary of this decision, President Obama said, “As we mark the anniversary of this historic civil rights decision, we reaffirm our commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

In reaffirming this commitment, the Administration highlighted its past and continuing efforts to enforce disability discrimination laws, as well as other activities to support individuals with disability.

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a website dedicated to Olmstead enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes.

These Justice Department efforts also are reflected in the companion enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute disability discrimination by the Labor Department Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in employment, the HUD and related areas, the Department of Education in education and related fields and a host of other agencies.

The enforcement of disability discrimination and accommodation requirements in the employment space is even more zealous making big dollar EEOC and private plaintiff judgements and settlements increasingly common. See, e.g. Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Where the entity is a private or government agency that is a government contractor or receiving other federal funds or grants, compliance with the ADA and other nondiscrimination and civil rights laws is particularly important as the contracts or regulations pursuant to which these funds are granted typically require compliance with these and other special nondiscrimination rules. In the case of funds provided under the 2009 Stimulus Bill, the scope of businesses subject to these requirements and the likelihood of audits was specifically increased in many ways, making recipients of these funds at particular risk for failing to fulfill requirements.

These Federal enforcement activities are further heightened by rising private litigation of disability claims. These public and private actions are encouraged by changes made by Congress to the ADA, which make it easier for plaintiff’s bringing disabilities claims to win, as well as the proactive agenda of the Obama Administration in enforcing disability discrimination laws.

In light of these continuing enforcement efforts, businesses should continue and heighten their diligence against possible disability discrimination exposures by strengthening policies, practices, training and documentation to keep up compliance and to position to defend against possible charges.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Labor Risks Rising For Employers Despite NLRB Loss Of Arizona Secret Ballot Challenge

September 6, 2012

Businesses concerned about Obama Administration-backed efforts to promote its pro-labor agenda must stay diligent despite the set back suffered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in its attempt to a Federal Judge to challenge state laws that purport to require secret balloting in union elections in NLRB v. State of Arizona.

Federal District Judge Frederick J. Martone handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with NLRB efforts to strengthen labor organizing powers by restricting secret ballot protections when he rejected the NLRB claims that an Arizona Constitutional Amendment mandating secret balloting in union elections was an unconstitutional infringement on the NLRB’s powers in his September 5, 2012 decision in NLRB v. State of Arizona, the Court left the door open for a potentially successful challenge to the Arizona secret ballot amendment in the future depending on how Arizona applies the law. Furthermore, considered in the context of the Obama Administration’s broader pro-union regulatory and enforcement agenda, the NLRB’s challenge to the Arizona and other state secret ballot laws reminds businesses that their operation face a minefield of mounting labor-management relations risks icluding many that create traps for management sometimes even in the case of non-union workplaces. In light of these expanding exposures, business leaders should update their policies and practices to mitigate the rising risks while keeping a close eye on the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to expand the power of organized labor by challenging secret ballot mandates in Arizona and other states and the plethora of other pro-union regulatory and enforcement efforts.

NLRB Attacks On Workers’ Secret Balloting Rights

Undermining worker’s secret ballot rights is a key initiative that organized labor with the support of the Obama Administration has promoted to help union organization efforts.

Secret balloting of workers in union organizing elections is designed to promote the ability of worker’s to vote their wishes free from the fear of retaliation by unions or management. It has been a key element of the NLRA since its enactment.

The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace generally is a two-step process that begins with the submission by organizers to the NLRB of a petition or authorization card signed by at least 30% of the employees requesting recognition of the union. Under existing law, once the NLRB verifies that the organizers have met the petition or authorization card requirement, it generally orders a secret ballot election unless more than 50% of the workers have signed authorization cards and either:

The employer notifies the NLRB that it is waiving the secret ballot and voluntarily recognizing the union; or
The NLRB orders the employer to recognize a union based on the NLRB’s determination that the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.

Since the Obama Administration came to power, however, labor with the support of the NLRB and the Obama Administration have included efforts to eliminate or get around secret balloting as part of their broader campaign to strengthen and promote unions and their power. These efforts are reflected in the sharp increase in orders by the NLRB with new Obama appointees that employers recognize unions without balloting, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are pushing to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make union recognition mandatory without any balloting when the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, and challenges to state laws that would impede these efforts like that brought against the State of Arizona. While Congressional Democrats and the Administration have thus far failed to get the legislation passed, they continue to voice their support for and intention to pursue its enactment after the elections in November.

NLRB’s Challenge To Arizona Constitution’s Secret Ballot Provision

In NLRB v. State of Arizona, Judge Frederick J. Martone on September 5, 2012 handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with its efforts to avoid or cut secret ballot protection when it granted the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss the case but left the door open for future action.

As Federal legislation and enforcement actions that would limit workers’ rights to vote in a secret ballot rights have continued, Arizona and various other states have enacted laws to protect secret ballot rights in their states.

In January 2011, the NLRB advised Arizona and three other states that recently adopted “secret-ballot amendments” conflicted with longstanding federal labor law by restricting the methods by which employees can choose a union. When no agreement could be reached, the NLRB filed suit to have the Arizona amendment declared unconstitutional.

The Arizona lawsuit challenged a 2010 constitutional amendment to the Arizona Constitution that states”[t]he right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation is fundamental and shall be guaranteed where local, state or federal law permits or requires elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation.” Arizona Constitution, Article 2 § 37. In its lawsuit, the NLRB asked the Federal Court to declare Article 2 § 37 unconstitutional and preempted to the extent that it applies to private employers, private employees, and labor organizations subject to the NLRA on the grounds that the state secret ballot rule “creates a state forum to protect employee representation rights, a task which Congress assigned exclusively to the NLRB.

Among its other efforts to defend the statute, Arizona argued there was no preemption because the state’s “guarantee” of a secret ballot election would only apply if the voluntary recognition option is not selected.

In reaching its ruling, the Federal Court hung its hat on this argument. “It is possible that state litigation invoking (the amendment) may impermissibly clash with the NLRB’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes over employee recognition, conduct secret ballot elections, and address unfair labor practices,” Judge Martone wrote. However, because the amendment has not yet been applied, Judge Martone wrote that he could not assume that it would conflict with the NLRA.

Arizona Decision A Temporary Victory In Battle In Labor-Management Relations War

While the court rejected the NLRB challenge of the Arizona secret ballot requirement this week, the NLRB’s announced disagreement with the decision coupled with the limited scope of the ruling makes clear that businesses watch for another NLRB challenge based on the implementation of the law as well as other new regulatory and enforcement traps for employers.

The court battle over Arizona’s secret ballot amendment is just one of the many areas where the NLRB under the Obama Administration is pursuing a pro-union agenda. In addition to challenging state laws that might operate to restrict union organizing or other activities, the NLRB also has adopted and is promoting the adoption of other pro-labor rules as well as stepping up enforcement on behalf of labor. See e.g., NLRB Moves To Promote Non-Union Employee Use of Collective Action Rights By Launching Webpage; NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints Formal Proceedings Comments Feed; NLRB Settlement Shows Care Necessary When Using Social Networking & Other Policies Restricting Employee Communications. As part of these efforts, for instance, the NLRB increasingly is challenging the authority of employers to enforce mandatory arbitration provisions in employee handbooks or employment agreements, to regulate social media, and to engage in a broad range of other common employer practices while at the same time, it is using its regulatory powers to promote employer posting and other requirements designed to educate workers about their organizational rights. As many of these new rules apply both to unionized workplaces and ununionized workplace, these and other evolving rules often leave all employers to significant and often underappreciated labor law risks in a broad range of circumstances. This risk tends to take on particular significance for unorganized workforces due to a low awareness or appreciation of these changes or their implications on unorganized workforces by their management team. Mistakes are increasingly costly in the current enforcement environment.

Costly Consequences For Employers

The statistics show the cost of management mishandling of labor relations in today’s environment is expensive and growing. This pro-labor regulatory and enforcement agenda as resulted in a significant rise in NLRB unfair labor practice charges in recent years. According to NLRB statistics, the number of unfair labor practice charges brought by the NLRB steadily rose from 2009 to 2011. The number of charges filed by was 1,342 in 2011, 1,242 in 2010, 1,166 in 2009 and 1,108 in 2008. Moreover, NLRB statistics also document that backpay and other remedies also have risen sharply during this period. For instance, in 2008, the NLRB ordered a total of $68,800,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines in 9,400 cases. In contrast, in 2009, the NLRB ordered $77,700,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines against employers even though the number of cases dropped to 8,700,000 cases. This trend continued in 2010, where out of 8,300 cases, the NLRB ordered employers to pay $86,100,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines. See NLRB Statistics. See also NLRB Case Decisions.

In light of this increased activism, employers should exercise care when using mandatory arbitration, compensation gag rule, or other similar provisions; dealing with requests for employee representation by union and non-union employees in organizing, contracting and even disciplinary actions; establishing and administering social networking, communication and other policies; and a wide range of other situations. In addition, employers concerned about these or other labor activities should consult competent counsel for advice about appropriate options and risks for dealing with these activities.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the NLRA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource, labor and employment and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, labor management, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of Ms. Stamer’s other recent updates, including:

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: Collective Bargaining, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment, Health Plans, Human Resources, Labor, Labor-Management, Risk Management, Unfair Labor Practice, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

USI Advisors Will Pay $1.27 Million To Settle Charges It Violated ERISA Fee Disclosure Requirements

August 23, 2012

USI Advisors Inc. (USI) will pay $1,265,608.70 to 13 pension plans to resolve charges it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to properly disclose 12b-1 fees it collected off of fund investments. The complaint behind the settlement reflects the commitment of the U.S Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) to enforcing Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fee disclosure and other requirements against service providers to employee benefit plans. With regulations tightening, the tough economy driving greater scrutiny of plan investments, expenditures and performance, and enforcement rising, plan vendors, and the employee benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries responsible for their engagement, compensation and oversight need to ensure the adequacy of their processes for deciding and reporting compensation, as well as the qualification, selection and oversight of vendors and fiduciaries generally.

USI Settlement

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) USI, fiduciary investment adviser made investments in mutual funds on behalf of ERISA-covered defined benefit plan clients and received 12b-1 fees from those funds. A 12b-1 fee is paid by a mutual fund out of fund assets to cover certain expenses. USI Advisors failed to fully disclose the receipt of the 12b-1 fees, and to use those fees for the benefit of the plans either by directly crediting the amounts to the plans or by offsetting other fees the plans would be obligated to pay the company.

“If you, as an investment adviser, are a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to plan investments in mutual funds, you cannot use your fiduciary authority to receive an additional fee or to receive compensation from third parties for your own personal account in transactions involving plan assets. We are very pleased that this settlement addresses the problems we identified with USI’s practices and restores funds to the plans and their participants,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for employee benefits security. “We are also very pleased that recently finalized fee disclosure regulations issued by the Labor Department will require fiduciaries like USI to be more transparent about the fees they receive when dealing with their plan clients.”

Under the terms of the settlement, USI Advisors has agreed not to provide bundled investment advisory and actuarial services to any ERISA-covered defined benefit plan client without first entering into a written agreement, contract or letter of understanding that specifies the services provided and whether the company or its affiliates will act as a fiduciary to those plans. USI Advisors also will provide to clients a description of all compensation and fees received, in any form, from any source, involving any investment or transaction related to them.

The alleged violations in this case occurred between 2004 and 2010. USI Advisors is a wholly owned subsidiary of USI Consulting Group, a Goldman Sachs Capital Partners Co.

The investigation conducted by EBSA as part of the agency’s Consultant/Adviser Project, highlights the need for employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors alike to properly identify and report all vendor compensation received by employee benefit plan investment advisors and other service providers in compliance with ERISA’s fee disclosure and other requirements. The Consultant/Adviser Project targets vendors and advisors to employee benefit plans for review, and where applicable, enforcement action when service providers violate ERISA’s requirements. EBSA has made misconduct by consultants, advisors and other service providers a priority as part of its broader emphasis on enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility and reporting requirements.

Tightening Rules, Enforcement & Tough Times Driving Risks

The EBSA’s announcement of the USI settlement comes as it continues to move forward to strengthen the transparency of vendor compensation and other fiduciary regulations and enforcement. Just shortly before today’s announcement, EBSA recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

EBSA’s final fee disclosure regulation[i] published on requires plan administrators to make to disclose specified information about retirement plan fees and expenses to participants and beneficiaries. The regulation requires plan administrators to give participants and beneficiaries more informationm about administrative and investment fees and expenses in their 401(k) plans.

EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02, which provided guidance to its field enforcement personnel in question and answer format on the obligations of plan administrators under the fee disclosure regulation on May 7, 2012. In response to questions and concerns about statements in Question 30 regarding brokerage windows and other arrangements that enable plan participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 which supersedes Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02 by modifying its provisions about brokerage windows and inviting more public comments for EBSA to use to consider further clarification of this guidance.

As did its predecessor, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R specifies that while the fee disclosure regulation covers “brokerage windows,” “self-directed brokerage accounts,” and other similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, its coverage of brokerage windows is limited to the disclosure requirements in paragraph (c) of the regulation relating to plan-related information. The disclosure requirements for investment-related information in paragraph (d) of the regulation do not apply to brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, and similar arrangements or to any investment selected by a participant or beneficiary that is not designated by the plan (i.e., any investments made through the window, account, or arrangement).

Beyond meeting the technicalities of the fee disclosure requirements, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and vendors should also ensure that their selection, oversight, determination of compensation and other dealings with plan vendors and consultants meet the general fiduciary responsibility, prohibited transaction, bonding and other requriements of ERISA, as well as any applicable securities and tax requirements.

Through its participant fee disclosure and other stepped up fiduciary regulations and enforcement, EBSA is sending clear signals that it stands ready to investigate and take action against service providers or others that charge excessive fees, failure to adequately justify or appropriately disclose fees or other compensation from plan transactions, or other fiduciary protections of ERISA. In the face of these requirements, plan fiduciaries, sponsors, advisors and vendors should carefully review the appropriateness of compensation received or promised to plan vendors, as well as the adequacy of practices for identifying and reporting that compensation and the selection and oversight of the vendors receiving that compensation.

For Help or More Information

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.

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:

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Defined Contribution Plans, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, Income Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans | Tagged: 401(k) plans, brokerage accounts, compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, fee disclosure regulation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Management, Plan Sponosr, Retirement Plans, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries

August 23, 2012

From handling requests for light duty or other modifications follow a leave to investigating the medical justification for leaves or the fitness of an employee to return to work following a medical absence, employers need to use care to manage disability discrimination exposures.

Today’s announcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Wal-Mart) will pay $50,000 in back pay and damages to settle an EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit highlights the potential disability discrimination risks that employers can face when deciding not to provide a requested accommodation to a worker returning from medical leave while other recent enforcement actions show ADA risks from simply making medical inquiries to a worker on or returning from medical leave.

In its lawsuit against Wal-Mart, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the EEOC charged that a Carlsbad, N.M Wal-Mart store violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing a part-time sales clerk, Marcia Arney because the store refused to provide temporary accommodations ordered by her physician following a period of medical leave.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, when Arney, a 22-year Wal-Mart employee, showed the store manager a note from her doctor requesting an accommodation involving periodic breaks off her feet, the manager refused to return her to her job unless she obtained a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC claims that had Wal-Mart inquired further, it would have known the accommodation need was temporary and in any case, that Wal-Mart easily could have accommodated the restriction.

Under the consent decree settling the suit, Wal-Mart will conduct annual live ADA training of management officials at its Carlsbad store and post a notice on its agreement with the EEOC so that employees are aware of procedures for reporting disability discrimination. Wal-Mart also committed to not require disabled workers to produce a full release from their doctor upon returning from a medical leave. Further, Wal-Mart agreed to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees to find a reasonable accommodation to assist them in performing their jobs and to report future requests for accommodation, as well as charges and lawsuits alleging disability discrimination to the EEOC for the duration of the decree.

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations reflect Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to make sure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a disabled person with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Wal-Mart, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Disabled employees or applicants that can prove they fully were denied reasonable accommodations or otherwise subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

The lawsuit against Wal-Mart is part of a wave of lawsuits in which the EEOC or other agencies under the Obama Administration are aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In the Wal-Mart case, the suit challenged an employer’s refusal to provide requested accommodations. In other cases, however, the EEOC or other agencies under the Obama Administration also have challenged medical inquiries made by an employer to employees during or returning from leave. Both types of suits send clear signals that employers should use care in making medical inquiries and responding to requests for accommodation from employees taking or returning from medical leaves. See, e.g., Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks , businesses generally should act to manage their exposures. Management needs to recognize the likely need to defend medical inquiries, decisions to refuse accommodation requests or other similar actions that arise when dealing with employees taking or returning from medical leave due to a disability, illness or injury. Employers need to critically check and document the legitimate business justification for making a medical inquiry or refusing a requested accommodation based on a well-documented investigation and analysis tailored to the specific situation of each requesting employee.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information that could be helpful or hurtful in the event of a discrimination charge. Businesses need to ensure that all required records and statistics are collected. In addition, businesses also should consider strengthening record creation and retention efforts to help preserve other evidence that could be invaluable to defending charges and change the way that decisions are made and documented to position their organizations to more effectively demonstrate the defensibility of their employment and other business activities against potential nondiscrimination charges.

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s

August 13, 2012

Employers that require employees to submit to medical examinations, question employees about physician or mental conditions or disabilities while on medical leave or for other fitness for duty assessments, or engage in other similar activities should evaluate the defensibility of those practices in light of the growing challenges to these and other employee screening practices by the Obama Administration and private plaintiff attorneys like the Justice Department disability discrimination complaint that lead to a $475,000 settlement against Baltimore County, Maryland.

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

On August 7, 2012, the Justice Department announced that Baltimore County, Maryland will pay $475,000 and change its hiring procedures to resolve a Justice Department lawsuit filed that charged the county violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and disability-related inquiries without a proper reason, and by excluding applicants from emergency medical technician (EMT) positions because of their diabetes. The prosecution is notable both for the Justice Department’s challenge of health screenings of EMTs and other workers in key safety positions generally as well as the Justice Department’s challenges to the employer’s medical inquiries to workers on medical leave.

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions concerning disability-related inquiries and medical examinations reflect Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to ensure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a disabled person with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Baltimore County settlement, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland is one in a growing series of lawsuits in which the Justice Department or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In its lawsuit against the County, the Justice Department complaint identified 10 current and former police officers, firefighters, EMTs, civilian employees and applicants who were allegedly subjected to inappropriate and intrusive medical examinations and/or other disability-based discrimination. Justice Department officials claimed the County required some employees to undergo medical examinations or respond to medical inquiries that were unrelated to their ability to perform the functions of their jobs. The complaint also alleged the County required employees to submit to medical examinations that were improperly timed, such as requiring an employee who was on medical leave and undergoing medical treatment to submit to a medical exam even though the employee was not attempting to return to work yet.

According to the complaint, numerous affected employees – some of whom had worked for the County for decades – submitted to the improper medical exams for fear of discipline or termination if they refused. The complaint also alleges that the county retaliated against an employee who tried to caution against the unlawful medical exams and refused to hire two qualified applicants for EMT positions because they had diabetes.

In the proposed consent decree filed on August 7, 2012 and awaiting District Court approval, the County seeks to resolve the lawsuit by agreeing to:

Pay $475,000 to the complainants and provide additional work-related benefits (including retirement benefits and back pay, plus interest);
Adopt new policies and procedures regarding the administration of medical examinations and inquiries;
Refrain from using the services of the medical examiner who conducted the overbroad medical examinations in question;
End the automatic exclusion of job applicants who have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; and
Give ADA training to all current supervisory employees and all employees who participate in making personnel decisions.

Obama Administration Aggressively Enforcing & Interpreting Employment & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

The Baltimore County suit is reflective of the aggressive emphasis that the Obama Administration is placing on challenging employers that require employees to undergo medical screening, respond to medical inquiries or engage in other practices that the EEOC, Justice Department or other Obama Administration officials under Title I of the ADA, as well as its heavy emphasis upon enforcement of the ADA and other disability discrimination laws against U.S. businesses and state and local government agencies generally.

The Justice Department action against Baltimore County is part of the Obama Administration’s sweeping effort to enforce employment and other disability discrimination laws against businesses and state and local government agencies alike. While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. This enforcement targets both public employers like Baltimore County, and private employers. In the private employer arena, for instance, the EEOC earlier this year sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the ADA by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

As illustrated by the suits against Baltimore County, Texas Wendy’s and many other public and private employers, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

Defending disability discrimination charges has become more complicated due to both the aggressive interpretation and enforcement of the ADA under the Obama Administration and amendments to the ADA that aid private plaintiffs, the EEOC, the Justice Department and others to prove their case. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, signed into law on September 25, 2008, broadened the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the ADAAA:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes. Given the Obama Administration’s well-documented, self-touted activism of the EEOC, Justice Department and other federal agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their employment disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled taking into account both the broadened disability definition and the aggressive interpretative stance of the Obama Administration. Businesses also generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to promote the ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

Guarding against disability discrimination in employment is not the only area that businesses need to prepare to defend against. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department has aggressively enforced the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws against state agencies and private businesses that it perceives to have improperly discriminated against disabled individuals. For instance, the Justice Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. Statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes have expanded the scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws and risks of charges of discrimination.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Reminded To Confirm Credentials & Bonding For Internal Staff, Plan Fidiciaries & Vendors Dealing With Benefits

August 13, 2012

Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans and officers, directors, employees and others acting as fiduciaries with respect to these employee benefit plans should take steps to confirm that all of the appropriate fiduciary bonds required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) are in place, that all employee benefit plans sponsored are appropriately covered, and that all individuals serving in key positions requiring bonding are covered and appropriately qualified to serve in that capacity under ERISA and the terms of the bond. Adequate attention to these concerns not only is a required component of ERISA’s fiduciary compliance, it also may provide invaluable protection if a dishonesty or other fiduciary breach results in a loss or other exposure.

ERISA generally requires that every employee benefit plan fiduciary, as well as every other person who handles funds or other property of a plan (a “plan official”), be bonded if they have some discretionary control over a plan or the assets of a related trust. While some narrow exceptions are available to this bonding requirement, these exceptions are very narrow and apply only if certain narrow criteria are met. Plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries should take steps to ensure that all of the bonding requirements applicable to their employee benefit plans are met at least annually. Monitoring these compliance obligations is important not only for the 401(k) and other retirement plans typically associated with these requirements, but also for self-insured medical and other ERISA-covered employee benefit plans. This process of credentialing persons involved with the plan and auditing bonding generally should begin with adopting a written policy requiring bonding and verification of credentials and that that appropriate bonds are in place for all internal personnel and outside service providers.

Steps should be taken to ensure that the required fiduciary bonds are secured in sufficient amounts and scope to meet ERISA’s requirements. In addition to confirming the existence and amount of the fiduciary bonds, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should confirm that each employee plan for which bonding is required is listed in the bond and that the bond covers all individuals or organizations that ERISA requires to be bonded. For this purpose, the review should verify the sufficiency and adequacy of bonding in effect for both internal personnel as well as outside service providers. In the case of internal personnel, the adequacy of the bonds should be reviewed annually to ensure that bond amounts are appropriate. Unless a service provider provides a legal opinion that adequately demonstrates that an ERISA bonding exemption applies, plan sponsors and fiduciaries also should require that third party service providers provide proof of appropriate bonding as well as to contract to be bonded in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws, to provide proof of their bonded status or documentation of their exemption, and to provide notice of events that could impact on their bonded status. When verifying the bonding requirements, it also is a good idea to conduct a criminal background check and other prudent investigation to reconfirm the credentials and suitability of individuals and organizations serving in fiduciary positions or otherwise acting in a capacity covered by ERISA’s bonding requirements. ERISA generally prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from serving, and prohibits plan sponsors, fiduciaries or others from knowingly hiring, retaining, employing or otherwise allowing these convicted individuals during or for the 13-year period after the later of the conviction or the end of imprisonment, to serve as:

An administrator, fiduciary, officer, trustee, custodian, counsel, agent, employee, or

representative in any capacity of any employee benefit plan,

A consultant or adviser to an employee benefit plan, including but not limited to any entity whose activities are in whole or substantial part devoted to providing goods or services to any employee benefit plan, or
In any capacity that involves decision-making authority or custody or control of the moneys, funds, assets, or property of any employee benefit plan.

Because ERISA’s bonding and prudent selection of fiduciaries and service provider requirements, breach of its provisions carries all the usual exposures of a fiduciary breach.

Bonding exposures can arise in audit or as part of a broader fiduciary investigation.The likelihood of discovery in an audit or investigation by the Labor Department in the course of an audit is high, as review of bonding is a standard part of audits and investigations. The Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Enforcement Manual specifies in connection with the conduct of a fiduciary investigation or audit:

… the Investigator/Auditor will ordinarily determine whether a plan is in compliance with the bonding, reporting, and disclosure provisions of ERISA by completing an ERISA Bonding Checklist … These checklists will be filled out in fiduciary cases and retained in the RO workpaper case file unless violations are uncovered, developed, and reported in the ROI.

In the best case scenario, where the bonding noncompliance comes to light in the course of an EBSA audit where no plan loss resulted, the responsible fiduciary generally runs at least a risk that EBSA will assess the 20 percent fiduciary penalty under ERISA Section 502(l). If the bonding lapse comes to light in connection with a fiduciary breach that resulted in damages to the plan by a fiduciary or other party, the bonding insufficiency may be itself a breach of fiduciary duty resulting in injury to the plan and where this breach left the plan unprotected against an act of dishonesty or fiduciary breach by an individual who should have been bonded, may spread liability for the wrongful acts of the wrongdoer to a plan sponsor, member of management or other party serving in a fiduciary role who otherwise would not be liable but for definiciences in the bonding or other credentialing responsibilities.

Under ERISA Section 409, a fiduciary generally is personally liable for injuries to the plan arising from his own breach (such as failure to properly bond) or resulting from breaches of another co-fiduciary who he knew or should have known through prudent exercise of his responsibilities.

Of course, in the most serious cases, such as embezzlement or other criminal acts by a fiduciary of ERISA, the consequences can be quite dire. Knowing or intentional violation of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibilities exposes the guilty fiduciary to fines of up to $10,000, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Even where the violation is not knowing or willful, however, allowing disqualified persons to serve in fiduciary roles can have serious consequences such as exposure to Department of Labor penalties and personal liability for breach of fiduciary duty for damages resulting to the plan if it is established that the retention of services was an imprudent engagement of such an individual that caused the loss. When conducting such a background check, care should be taken to comply with the applicable notice and consent requirements for conducting third party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law. As such background investigations generally would be conducted in such a manner as to qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, conducting background checks in a manner that violates the FCRA credit check requirements itself can be a source of significant liability.

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Updates Guidance On Fee Disclosure Requirements For 401(k) Plan Brokerage Window Arrangements

August 6, 2012

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

New Q-39 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R addresses when a plan offers an investment platform that includes a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement but the fiduciary did not designate any of the funds on the platform or available through the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement as “designated investment alternatives” under the plan, if the brokerage account platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement is a designated investment alternative for purposes of the regulation. According to Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R, it is not. According to the Field Assistance Bulletin, the regulation does not require that a plan have a particular number of “designated investment alternative” (DIA), and the Bulletin does not prohibit the use of a platform or a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement in an individual account plan. Rather, whether an investment alternative is a DIA for purposes of the regulation depends on whether it is specifically identified as available under the plan.

However Question 39 also cautions plan administrators and fiduciaries about the need to ensure other applicable ERISA obligations are fulfilled. Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02R notes it does not change the 404(c) regulation or the requirements for relief from fiduciary liability under section 404(c) of ERISA or address the application of ERISA’s general fiduciary requirements to SEPs or SIMPLE IRA plans. Also, fiduciaries of such plans with platforms or brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, or similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan are still bound by ERISA section 404(a)’s statutory duties of prudence and loyalty to participants and beneficiaries who use the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement, including taking into account the nature and quality of services provided in connection with the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement. It also notes that that a 401(k) or other individual account plan fiduciary’s failure to designate investment alternatives to avoid investment disclosures under the regulation, raises questions under ERISA section 404(a)’s general statutory fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.

For Help or More Information

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:

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

Federal Mandate That Employer Health Plans Must Cover 100% Of Contraceptive, Other Women’s Health Services With No Cost Sharing Now Effective

August 6, 2012

August 1 Effective Date Of Obama Administration Addition of Contraception & Other Women’s Health Services To Already Lengthy List of Prevention Services Plans Must Cover

Effective August 1, 2012, federal regulators expanded the list of prevention-related services that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) requires that non-grandfathered group health plans cover in-network at no cost to covered persons to include eight more prevention-related health services for women including coverage for the mandate to cover certain contraceptive services that has engendered much debate and opposition from various religious organizations and others.

Employers and other sponsors and insurers of group health plans should review and update their health plan documents, contracts, communications and administration practices to ensure that their health plans and policies appropriately cover these and other prevention-related services that current federal regulations mandate that group health plans (other than grandfathered plans) must cover to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Non-Grandfathered Health Plans Must Cover Expansive List of Prevention Services

As part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act, Congress has mandated that except for certain plans that qualify as “grandfathered,” group health plans and insurers generally must pay for 100% of the cost to cover hundreds of prevention-related health care services for individuals covered under their health plans without any co-payments or other cost-sharing.identified in the services without cost sharing.

Federal regulations have mandated since 2010 that group health plans and insurers provide in-network coverage in accordance with federal regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s prevention-related health services mandates for more than 800 prevention-related services listed in regulations originally published in 2009. See Agencies Release Regulations Implementing Affordable Care Act Preventive Care Mandates. The Affordable Care Act gives federal authorities the power to expand or modify this list. Following publication of the original list, the Obama Administration engaged in lengthy discussion considerations about the scope of contraceptive and other women’s health services that would qualify as prevention related services including lengthy discussions and negotiations about mandates to provide contraceptive services viewed as highly controversial by many religious organizations and several other employers. See Affordable Care Act To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures.

Obama Administration Adds Contraceptive & Other Women’s Health Services To Required List Effective 8/1/2012

The Obama Administration moved forward on its promise to add contraceptive services and a broad list of other women’s health services to the list of prevention-related health services that employer-sponsored health plans must cover without cost to employees despite objections from religious organizations and others that the contraception mandate violates the Constitution’s freedom of religion protections.

The Obama Administration’s announcement earlier this year that it intended to move forward with plans to mandate that group health plans – including those of certain employers affiliated with religious organizations to cover contraceptive counseling and other services as prevention-related services has prompted outcry and legal challenges from a broad range of religious organizations and others. See e.g., University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius; Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius. On July 27, 2012, a Colorado District Court granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate against a small, Catholic family-owned business challenging the mandate as a violation of the Constitutional religious freedoms of its owners. See Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius.

While these and other litigants continue to challenge the contraceptive mandates, Obama Administration officials continue to voice their commitment to standby and enforce the contraceptive and other prevention-related services mandates as implemented by current regulation. Employer and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries that do not wish to risk exposure for violating these mandates should review and update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, and administrative and other procedures as necessary to comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations.

For Help or More Information

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 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on leading health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

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, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press 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 update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Mandated Benefits, Plan Sponosr, preventive care, Risk Managment, Women's Health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities

August 1, 2012

August 1 marked the effective date of yet another Affordable Care Act mandate: the controversial contraceptive coverage and other women’s health preventive coverage benefits mandates. Although many mandates have taken effect over the past two years, few employer plans are adequately updated. Here’s some suggestions about what employers and fiduciaries responsible for group health plan sponsorship or administration and their vendors should do now to manage exposures arising from current Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Following the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling, most employers and insurers of employment based group health plans now are bracing to cope with radical changes in their health plan related responsibilities scheduled to take effect in 2014.

While anticipating and preparing to cope with these future changes health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors need to manage the substantial and growing health plan related costs and liabilities that the sponsorship or administration of an employee health plan between now and 2014 is likely to create for their company and its management. Consequently, while planning for 2014, employers sponsoring health plans and their management, insurers, administrators and vendors must act now to update and administer their group health plans timely to comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and other federal rules that have, or in coming months will, take effect pending the law’s full rollout in 2014.

For most health plans, these steps should include the following:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) (Including You) They Wear & Prudently Select, Contract With & Monitor Them To Manage Risks

Employers and their management rely upon many vendors and advisors and assumptions when making plan design and risk management decisions. Many times, employer and members of their management unknowingly assume significant risk because of misperceptions about these allocations of duties and operational and legal accountability. An correct understanding of these roles and responsibilities is the foundation for knowing where the risks come from, who and to what extent a business or its management can rely upon a vendor or advisor to properly design and administer a health plan or carry out related obligations, what risks cannot be delegated, and how to manage these risks.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), party or parties that exercise discretion or control over health plan administration, funds or certain other matters are generally called “fiduciaries.” Fiduciaries generally are personally liable for prudently and appropriately administering their health plan related responsibilities prudently in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws and the plan terms. Knowing who is acting as a fiduciary and understanding those duties and liabilities and how to manage these risks significantly affects the exposure that an employer or member of its management risks as a result of an employer’s sponsorship in a group health plan or other employee benefit program. Also, knowing what duties come first and how to prove that the fiduciary did the right thing is critical to managing risks when an individual who has fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA also has other responsibilities in the management of the sponsoring employer, a vendor or elsewhere that carries duties or interests that conflict with his health plan related fiduciary duties.

The plan sponsor or members of its leadership, a service provider or members of their staff generally may be a fiduciary for purposes of ERISA if it either is named as the fiduciary, it functionally exercises the discretion to be considered a fiduciary, or it otherwise has discretionary power over plan administration or other fiduciary matters. Many plan sponsors and their management unwittingly take on liability that they assume rests with an insurer or service provider because the company or members of its management are named as the plan administrator or named fiduciary with regard to duties that the company has hired an insurer or service provider to provide or allowed that service provider to disclaim fiduciary or discretionary status with regard to those responsibilities. Also, by not knowing who the fiduciaries are, plans and their fiduciaries often fail to confirm the eligibility of all parties serving as fiduciaries, to arrange for bonding of service providers or fiduciaries as required to comply with Title I of ERISA. Failing to properly understand when the plan sponsor, member of its management or another party is or could be a fiduciary can create unnecessary and unexpected risks and lead to reliance upon vendors who provide advice but leave the employer holding the bag for resulting liability.

In addition to fiduciary status, employer and other plan sponsors also need to understand the additional responsibilities and exposures that the employer bears as a plan sponsor. Beyond contractual and fiduciary liabilities, federal law increasingly imposes excise tax or other liability for failing to maintain legally compliant plans, file required reports, provide required notifications or fulfill other requirements. The Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, the Privacy, Security, and Administrative Simplification For instance, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and various other federal laws also impose certain health plan related obligations and liabilities on employer or other health plan sponsors and other parties. The Internal Revenue Service interprets Internal Revenue Code § 6039D as obligating employers sponsoring health plans that violate these and certain other federal health plan rules to self-identify, self-report, and self-assess and pay excise and other taxes due under the Internal Revenue Code as a result of this non-compliance. Knowing what everyone’s roles and responsibilities are is a critical first step to properly understanding and managing health plan responsibilities and related risks.

An accurate understanding of the risks and who bears them is critical to understand the risks, opportunities to mitigate risk through effective contracting or other outsourcing, when outsourcing does not effectively transfer risks, where to invest resources for contract, plan or process review and changes or other risk management, and where to expect costs and risks and implement processes and procedures to deal with risks that cannot be outsourced or managed.

Know What Rules Apply To Your Plan, The Sponsoring Employer, The Plan Its Fiduciaries & Plan Related Vendors & How This Impacts You & Your Group Health Plan

The requirements and rules impacting health plans and their liabilities have undergone continuous changes. Amid these changing requirements, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, and service providers often may not have kept their knowledge, much less their plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative forms and procedures and other materials and practices up to date. These requirements and their compliance and risk management significance may vary depending upon whether the reviewing or regulated party is the plan, its sponsor, fiduciary, insurer or services in some other rules; how the plans are arranged and documented, the risk and indemnification allocations negotiated among the parties, the risk tolerance of the party, and other factors. Proper understanding of these rules and their implications is critical to understand and manage the applicable risks and exposures.

Review & Update Health Plan Documents, SPDs & Other Communications, Administrative Forms & Procedures, Contracts & Processes To Meet Requirements & Manage Exposures

Timely updating written plan documents, communications and administration forms, administrative practices, contracts and other health plan related materials processes and procedures has never been more critical.

Federal law generally requires that health plan be established, maintained and administered in accordance with legally complaint, written plan documents and impose a growing list of standards and requirements governing the design and administration of these programs. In addition, ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, federal eligibility and coverage continuation mandates of laws like the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, the Family & Medical Leave Act, Michelle’s Law and others require that health plan administrators or sponsors communicate plan terms and other relevant information to participants and beneficiaries.

Failing to update documents, communications, administrative forms and processes and other materials and practices can unleash a host of exposures. Among other things, noncompliant plans, communications and practices can trigger unanticipated costs and liabilities by undermining the ability to administer plan terms and conditions. They also may expose the plan, plan fiduciaries and others to lawsuits, administrative enforcement and sanctions and other enforcement liabilities.

Beyond these exposures, employers who sponsor group health plans that violate certain federal group health plan mandates have a duty to self-report certain regulatory plan failures and pay excise taxes where such failures are not corrected in a timely fashion once discovered, or are due to willful neglect. Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D imposes excise taxes for failure to comply with health care continuation (COBRA) , health plan portability (HIPAA), genetic nondiscrimination (GINA), mental health parity (MHPAEA) , minimum hospital stays for newborns and mothers (Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act), coverage of dependent students on medically necessary leaves of absence (Michelle’s Law), health savings account (HSA) and Archer medical savings account (Archer MSA) contribution comparability and various other federal requirements incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code. Since 2010, Internal Revenue Service regulations have required employers sponsoring group health plans not complying with mandates covered by Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-report violations and pay related excise taxes. Under these regulations, the sponsoring employer (or in some cases, the insurer, HMO or third-party administrator) must report health plan compliance failures annually on IRS Form 8928 (“Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code”) and self-assess and pay resulting excise taxes. The potential excise tax liability that can result under these provisions can be significant. For example, COBRA, HIPAA, and GINA violations typically carry excise tax liability of $100 per day per individual affected. Compliance with applicable federal group health plan mandates is critical to avoid these excise taxes as well as other federal group health plan liabilities.

For this purpose of deciding what and how much to do, it is critical to keep in mind the devil is in the details. Not only must the documentation meet all technical mandates, the language, its clarity and specificity, and getting the plan document to match the actual processes that will be used to administer the plan and ensuring that the plan documents and processes match the summary plan description, summary of benefits and coverage, administrative forms and documentation and other plan communications and documentation in a legally compliant way significantly impacts the defensibility of the plan terms and the cost that the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries can expect to incur to defend it.

Update & Tighten Claims and Appeals Plan & SPD Language, EOBs & Other Notifications, Processes, Contracts & Other Practices For Changing Compliance Requirements & Enhanced Defensibility

Proper health plan claims and appeals plan and summary plan description language, procedures, processing, notification and documentation is critical to maintain defensible claims and appeals decisions required to enforce plan terms and manage claims denial related liabilities and defense costs. Noncompliance with these requirements may prevent health plans from defending their claims or appeals denials, expose the plan administrator and plan fiduciaries involved or responsible for these activities to penalties, prompt unnecessary lawsuits, Labor Department enforcement or both; and drive up plan administration costs.

Unfortunately, most group health plans, their insurers and administrators need to substantially strengthen their plan documentation; handling; timeliness; notifications and other claims denials; and other claims and other appeals processes and documentation to meet existing regulations and otherwise strengthen their defensibility. Among other things, existing court decisions document that many plans existing plan documents, summary plan descriptions and explanations of benefits, claims and appeals investigations and documentation and notifications often need improvement to meet the basic plan document, summary plan description and reasonable claims rules of the plan document, summary plan description, fiduciary responsibility, reasonable claims and appeals procedures of ERISA and its implementing regulations. Court precedent shows that inadequate drafting of these provisions, as well as specific provisions coverage and benefit provisions frequently undermines the defensibility of claims and appeals determinations. In addition to requiring that claims be processed and paid prudently in accordance with the terms of written plan documents, ERISA also requirements that plan fiduciaries decide and administer claims and appeals in accordance with reasonable claims procedures. Although the Labor Department updated its regulations implementing this reasonable claims and appeals procedure requirement more than 10 years ago, the Department of Labor updated its ERISA claims and appeals regulations to include detailed health plan claims and appeals requirements, many group health plans, their administrators and insurers still have not updated their health plans, summary plan descriptions, claims and appeals notification, and claims and appeals procedures to comply with these requirements. The external review and other detailed additional requirements that the Affordable Care Act dictates that group health plans not grandfathered from its provisions and its provisions holding these non-grandfathered plans strictly liable for deficiencies in their claims and appeals procedures makes the need to address inadequacies even more imperative for those non-grandfathered group health plans. Inadequate attention to these concerns can force a plan to pay benefits for claims otherwise not covered as well as other defense costs and penalties.

Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation & Processes, Then Follow Them.

Defensible health plan administration starts with the building and adopting strong, legally compliant plan terms and processes that are carefully documented and communicated in a prudent, legally compliant way. The next key is to actually use this investment by conducting plan administration and related operations consistent with the terms and allocated responsibilities to administer the plan in a documented, legally compliant and prudent manner. Good documentation and design on the front end should minimize ambiguities in the meaning of the plan and who is responsible for doing what when. With these tools in place, delays and other hiccups that result from confusion about plan terms, how they apply to a particular circumstance or who is responsible for doing what, when should be minimized and much more easily resolved by timely, appropriate action by the proper responsible party. This facilitation of administration and its consistency can do much to enhance the defensibility of the plan and minimize other plan related risks and costs.

Ensure Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner

Having the proper party respond to claims and inquiries in a compliant, timely, prudent manner is another key element to managing health plan risk and promoting enforceability. Ideally, the party appointed to act as the named fiduciary for purposes of carrying out a particular function also should conduct all plan communications regarding that function in terms that makes clear its role and negates responsibility or authority of others. When an employer or other plan sponsor goes to the trouble to appoint a committee, service provider or other party to serve as the named fiduciary then chooses to communicate about the plan anyway, the Supreme Court in FMC v. Halliday made clear it runs the risk that the plan related communications may be considered discretionary fiduciary conduct for which it may be liable as a functional fiduciary. Meanwhile, these communications by non-fiduciaries also may create binding obligations upon the plan and its named fiduciaries to the extent made by a plan sponsor or conducted by a staff member or service provider performing responsibilities delegated by the plan fiduciary. Beyond expanding the scope of potential fiduciaries, communications conducted by nonfiduciaries also tend to create defensibility for many other reasons. For instance, allowing unauthorized parties to perform plan functions may not comport with the plan terms, and are less likely to create and preserve required documentation and follow procedures necessary to promote enforceability. Also, the communications, decisions and other actions by these non-fiduciary actors also are unlikely to qualify for discretionary review by the courts because grants of discretionary authority, if any in the written plan document to qualify the decisions of the named fiduciary for deferential review by courts typically will not extend to actions by these non-fiduciary parties. Furthermore, the likelihood that the communication or other activity conducted will not comply with the fiduciary responsibility or other requirements governing the performance of the plan related functions is significantly increased when a plan sponsor, service provider, member of management, or other party not who has not been appointed or accepted the appointment act as a named fiduciary undertakes to speak or act because that party very likely does not accept or fully appreciate the potential nature of its actions, the fiduciary and other legal rules applicable to the conduct, and the potential implications for the non-fiduciary actor, the plan and its fiduciaries.

Design and Implement Updated, Properly Secured Payroll, Enrollment, Eligibility and Other Data Collection Features To Meet New Requirements and Prepare For Added Affordable Care Act Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements.

Existing and impending Affordable Care Act mandates require that group health plans, their sponsors collect, maintain and administer is exploding. Existing eligibility mandates, for example, already require that plans have access to a broad range of personal indentifying, personal health and a broad range of other sensitive information about employees and dependents who are or may be eligible for coverage under the plan. While employers and their health plans historically have collected and retained the names, place of residence, family relationships, social security number, and other similar information about employees and their dependents, these data collection, retention and reporting requirements have and will continued to expand dramatically in response to evolving legal requirements. Already, health plans also from time to time need employee earnings, company ownership, employment status, family income, family, medical, military, and school leave information, divorce and child custody, enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid and other coverage and a broad range of other additional information. Under the Affordable Care Act, these data needs will explode to include a whole new range of information about total family income, availability and enrollment in other coverage, cultural and language affiliations, and many other items. Collecting, retaining and deploying this information will be critical to meeting existing and new plan administration and reporting requirements. How this data collection is conducted, shared, safeguarded against misuse or other legally sensitive contact by the employer, service providers, the plan and others will be essential to mitigate exposures to federal employment and other nondiscrimination, HIPAA and other privacy, fiduciary responsibility and other legal risks and obligations. To the extent that payroll providers, third party administrators or other outside service providers will participate in the collection, retention, or use of this data, time also should be set aside both to conduct due diligence about their suitability, as well as to negotiate the necessary contractual arrangements and safeguards to make their involvement appropriate. Finally, given the highly sensitive nature of this data, employers, health plans and others that will collect and use this data will need to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent and monitor for improper use, access or disclosure and to conduct the necessary training to suitably protect this data.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandates, many opportunities to impact its mandates remain. Beyond the highly visible, continuing and often heated debates ranging in Congress and the court of public opinion concerning whether Congress should modify or repeal its provisions, a plethora of regulatory interpretations issued or impending release by the implementing agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Labor and state insurance regulators will significantly impact what requirements and costs employers, insurers, individuals and governments will bear when the law takes effect. Businesses sponsoring health plans should carefully scrutinize this regulatory guidance and provide meaningful, timely input to Congress, the regulators or both as appropriate to help influence the direction of regulatory or Congressional actions that would materially impact these burdens.

Help Employees & Their Families Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training & Supportive Tools

Whether or not your company plans to continue to sponsor employee health coverage after 2014, providing training and tools to help employees and their families strengthen their ability to understand and manage their health, health care needs and benefits can pay big dividends. Beyond the financial costs to employees and employers of paying to care for a serious illness or injury, productivity also suffers while employees dealing with their own or a family member’s chronic or serious health care condition. Wellness programs that encourage and support the efforts of employees and their families to stay healthy may be one valuable part of these efforts. Beyond trying to prevent the need to cope with illness behind wellness programs, however, opportunities to realize big financial, productivity and benefit value recognition rewards also exist in the too often overlooked opportunity to provide training, education and tools that employees and their families need to better understand and self-manage care, benefits, finances and life challenges that commonly arise when dealing with their own or a family member’s illness. Providing education, tools and other resources that can help employees access, organize and effectively use health care and benefit information to manage care and the consequences of illness, their benefits and how to use them, to take part more effectively in care and care decisions, to recognize and self-manage financial, lost-time and other challenges associated with the illness not addressable or covered by health benefit programs, and other practical skills can help reduce lost time and other productivity impacts while helping employees and their families get the most out of the health care dollars spent.

Pack Your Parachute & Locate The Nearest Exit Doors

With the parade of expenses and liabilities associated with health plans, businesses sponsoring health plans and the management, service providers and others involved in their establishment, continuation, maintenance or administration are well advised to pack their survival kit and develop their exit strategies to position to soften the landing in case their health plan experiences a legal or operational disaster.

Employers and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries typically hire and rely upon a host of vendors and advisors to design and administer their health plans. When selecting and hiring these service providers, health plan sponsors and fiduciaries are well-advised to investigate carefully their credentials as well as require the vendors to provide written commitments to stand behind their advice and services. Too often, while these service providers and advisors encourage plan sponsors and fiduciaries to allow the vendor to lead them or even handle on an ongoing basis plan administration services by touting their services, experience, expert systems and process and commitment to stand behind the customer when making the sale or encouraging reliance upon their advice when tough decisions are made, they rush to stand behind exculpatory and on-sided indemnification provisions in their service contracts to limit or avoid liability, demand indemnification from their customer or both when things go wrong. While ERISA may offer some relief from certain of these exculpatory provisions under some circumstances, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should work to credential service providers and require service providers to commit to being accountable for their services by requiring contracts acknowledge all promised services and standards of quality, require vendors to commit to provide legally compliant and prudently designed and administered services that meet or exceed applicable legal requirements, to provide liability-backed indemnification or other protection for damages and costs resulting from vendor imprudence or malfeasance, to allow for contract termination if the vendor becomes unsuitable for continued use due to changing law or other circumstances and requiring the vendor to return data and other documentation critical to defend past decisions and provide for ongoing administration. Keep documentation about advice, assurances and other relevant evidence received from vendors which could be useful in showing your company’s or plan’s efforts to make prudent efforts to provide for the proper administration of the plan. When concerns arise, use care to investigate and redress concerns in a timely, measured fashion which both shows the prudent response to the concern and reflects sensitivity to the fiduciary and other roles and responsibilities of the employer sponsor and other parties involved.

Get Moving Now On Your Compliance & Risk Management Issues.

Since many compliance deadlines already have past and the impending deadlines allow plan sponsors and fiduciaries limited time to finish arrangements, businesses, fiduciaries and their service providers need to get moving immediately to update their health plans to meet existing and impending compliance and risk management risks under the Affordable Care Act and other federal laws, decisions and regulations.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, employer and other health plan sponsors, Congress continues to debate changes to the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Meanwhile, significant opportunity still exists to provide input to federal and state regulators on many key aspects of the Affordable Care Act and its relationship to other applicable laws even as court challenges to contraceptive coverage and other specific requirements are emerging. Businesses and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators, and other vendors must stay involved and alert. Zealously monitor new developments and share timely input with Congress and regulators about existing and emerging rules that present concerns and other opportunities for improvement even as you position to respond to these rules before they become fully implemented.

For Help or More Information

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:

Comments Off on 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Congress Gives Defined Benefit Plan Sponsors Welcome Funding Relief, Raises PBGC Premiums & Makes Other Reforms

July 31, 2012

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code generally require employers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans make sufficient contributions to their defined benefit pension plans to ensure that their plans meet minimum funding requirements.

Failure to meet minimum funding requirements triggers a series of complicated reporting and disclosure, funding and excise tax liabilities, liens and other obligations that are serious and require prompt redress through prompt payment of required contributions and penalties, request for funding waivers or termination under a series of complicated rules or both. Special controlled group, lien and successor liability rules incorporated into these funding requirements often spread the risk of funding deficiencies under these rules by extending liabilities to commonly controlled or affiliated employers, lenders, potential purchasers and others dealing with these plans or the businesses that sponsor them.

Because employer funding obligations under these rules depend heavily upon interest and other investment performance used to calculate funding levels, employer funding obligations tend to spike during economic depressions or slowdowns, resulting in sharp increases in funding obligations for employers at a time when the tight economy already makes finances tight. Congress has faced growing pressure to provide some sort of defined benefit pension plan funding relief as low investment returns and strained corporate budgets during the ongoing economic crisis have fueled an underfunding epidemic among employers sponsoring defined benefit pension plans and threatened the financial viability of many sponsoring employers and the federal insurance program responsible for providing backup insurance for private employer defined benefit commitments administered by the PBGC.

MAP-21 provides immediate defined benefit plan funding relief by changing how the interest rates that employers must use to calculate their current defined benefit plan funding obligations are calculated. MAP-21 defined benefit plan funding reforms effectively decrease current defined benefit plan funding costs by establishing a minimum and maximum for the interest segment rates defined benefit plans use to calculate currently required funding based on a historic 25-year average of those segment rates. It is important that employers and plan fiduciaries keep in mind that the MAP-21 interest rate change applies to the calculation of current funding obligations that employer. It does not apply for purposes of calculating lump sum distributions, limits on deductible contributions to single-employer plans, PBGC variable-rate premiums, fi

With many employers continuing to meet defined benefit plan funding requirements driven up by the continued excessively low investment performance of their benefit plan investment in the slow economic environment, defined benefit pension plan funding relief included in the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act”(MAP–21”) signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012 provides welcome and much-needed pension funding relief. For many financially strapped businesses that sponsor defined benefit plans, the MAP-21 relief may allow the employer to avoid terminating its defined benefit plan, escape costly underfunding consequences that many defined benefit plan sponsors fear will financially cripple or bankrupt their companies, or both.

MAP-21 provides immediate funding relief for financially strapped defined benefit plan sponsors and makes various other reforms impacting defined benefit pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) insurance program that helps to insure certain benefit commitments made under these defined benefit plans. The MAP-21 funding relief is intended to help employers struggling to meet heightened pension funding obligations brought about by the decline in investment performance resulting from the economic downturn.

nancial reporting under Section 4010 of ERISA, and qualified transfers of excess pension assets to retiree medical accounts.

In addition to changing the rules for calculating interest rates for purposes of determining defined benefit plan minimum funding obligations, MAP-21 also extends rules allowing transfers of excess pension assets to retiree health accounts to December 31, 2021 and expands those transfer rules also to allow transfers to fund retiree group term life insurance accounts.

Finally, in addition to these changes to defined benefit pension plan funding rules, MAP-21 also reorganizes the PBGC organizational structure and increases PBGC insurance premiums.

While the MAP-21 reforms will provide welcome relief, sponsoring businesses, their commonly controlled and affiliated employers, lenders, investors and successors still must exercise care to carefully monitor the funding status of defined benefit plans and the potential liabilities and responsibilities associated with these plans. Appropriate steps should be taken to maintain required funding levels or, at the first sign of trouble, to seek experienced legal and actuarial advice and help to identify and take prompt steps to pursue options to head off a potential crisis by freezing or terminating the plan, providing required notifications and disclosures to participants and beneficiaries, the PBGC, lenders, investors, and other concerned parties, and other actions to mitigate exposures.

For More Information Or Assistance

A Fellow in the the American College of Employee Benefits Council, Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Immediate Past Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Commitee, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer nearly 25 years experience advising and representing employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsors, bankruptcy creditors, debtors and trustees, plan fiduciaries and plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about employment, employee benefit, compensation, and a wide range of other performance, legal and operational risk management practices and concerns. As a part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients to manage risks and defend practices under a wide range of laws and circumstances. Her experience includes extensive work advising and representing employers, plans, plan fiduciaries, trustees, investors, and others about managing and resolving risks relating to distressed pension and other employee benefit plans, downsizing and other workforce reengineering and other similar matters. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on GINA and other employment and employee benefit risk management practices and concerns for the ABA, World At Work, SHRM, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

Other Resources & Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail with “Unsubscribe” in the subject here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Congress Gives Defined Benefit Plan Sponsors Welcome Funding Relief, Raises PBGC Premiums & Makes Other Reforms | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans | Tagged: defined benefit plan, disclosure, ERISA, funding, Labor Department, notices, PBGC, pension plans, reporting, underfunded plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Model Language May Aid Section 83(b) Elections Even As Executive & Other Special Compensation Carry Growing Liability Traps

June 26, 2012

Businesses wishing to accelerate their ability to deduct the value of nonqualified stock or other property transferred to an employee or contractor as compensation for services and employees and independent contractors anticipating the need to make a Section 83(b) election to minimize income tax on property to be received as compensation for service subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture which the recipient expects to grow in value may find sample language contained in Revenue Procedure 2012-29 (Revenue Procedure) helpful. While this new tool may faciliate the cost of preparing an election, executives and others receiving property as compensation and the businesses providing that compensation should exercise care to properly understand and manage responsibilities and requirements impacting these and other compensation arrangements under Section 89 and a growing list of increasingly complicated and diverse laws, regulations and other requirements.

The Revenue Procedure contains sample language that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says employees and independent contractors may (but are not required) to use to make the “83(b) election” that Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) requires the property recipient to make to accelerate income recognition as well as provides examples of the income tax consequences of making such an election.

Section 83(b) Election As Tax Planning Tool

Code Section 83 plays a key rule in determining when:

When the value of property received by an employee or other service provider as compensation for the performance of services becomes taxable to the recipient;
The timing of the valuation of the property; and
The timing of the employing businesses’ deduction of this property.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.83-3(f) specifies that property is transferred in connection with the performance of services if it is transferred to an employee or independent contractor (or beneficiary thereof) in recognition of the performance of services, or refraining from performance of services. Where Section 83 applies, the transfer of property is subject to Section 83 whether such transfer is in respect of past, present, or future services.

Code Section 83(a) generally provides that if, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred to any person other than the person for whom such services are performed, the excess of the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to any restriction other than a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) as of the first time that the transferee’s rights in the property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever occurs earlier, over the amount (if any) paid for the property is included in the service provider’s gross income for the taxable year which includes such time.

Where the property transferred as compensation is expected to increase in value from the time of the grant until transfer restrictions or risks of forfeiture lapse, the delay in income recognition dictated by Section 83(a) generally has the effect of increasing the income tax that the recipient will pay on the property.

Assuming that the value of the property when the property is granted is adequately ascertainable, however, Section 83(b) and Section 1.83-2(a) permit the service provider to elect to include in gross income the excess (if any) of the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer over the amount (if any) paid for the property, as compensation for services by making a timely Section 83(b) election.

Under Section 83(b)(2), an election made under Section 83(b) is only effective to accelerate the recognition of taxable income from the transfer of property for services if made in accordance with the regulations and filed with the IRS no later than 30 days after the date that the property is transferred to the service provider.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.83-2(c) provides for a service provider to make a Section 83(b) election be made under Section 83(b) is made by filing a copy of a written statement that meets the requirements of the Regulation with the IRS office with which the person who performed the service files his return and submitting a copy of that statement with his income tax return for the taxable year in which such property was transferred. Section 1.83-2(d) requires that the person who performed the services also submit a copy of the Section 83(b) election to the person for whom the services were performed.

While the Regulations dictate the required content of the Section 83(b) election, until now the IRS had not dictated or otherwise provided model language for use in making this election.

The Revenue Procedure provides model language to aid service providers who receive substantially nonvested property in connection with the performance of services and wish to file an election under Section 83(b).

While the model language should make the completion and filing of a desired Section 83(b) election easier for those wishing to accelerate income recognition from property received as compensation for services, employees and other service providers receiving property as compensation and their employers are cautioned to consult with qualified tax counsel or advisor about the applicability and implications of making a Section 83(b) election. Section 83 conditions the availability of the option to make a Section 83(b) election on the property having a “readily ascertainable fair market value” when transferred and timely election. In the case of stock options and certain other property, valuation issues may disqualify the transfer for coverage by a Section 83(b) election.

Beyond the restrictions on the use of the Section 83(b) election, parties considering making the election are cautioned to fully understand the consequences of making the election. Under certain circumstances, making an election to minimize future taxes can have unexpected consequences. For instance, a taxpayer that makes the election should be prepared to pay taxes on the property in the year received even though transfer or forfeiture restrictions on the property may prevent the taxpayer from selling or using the property currently.

Because the election is irrevocable hardships also can happen if the property decreases rather than increases in value after the date of transfer. Once made, Section 83(b) elections generally are irrevocable without the approval of the IRS, which is difficult to secure. Consequently, a service provider that makes a Section 83(b) election also runs the risk that he may pay greater taxes by making the election if the property subsequently declines in value. Of course where the employer conditions the grant of property on the making of the Section 83(b) election, the recipient employee or contractor may not be able to avoid this risk. At minimum, however, the service provider should be prepared for this possibility and have arrangements in place to meet the resulting tax obligations when they arise.

Ensure Old Compensation Experience Not Rendered Obsolete By New Rules

Because of the lengthy tenure of Section 83 of the Code, many businesses and their leaders often feel comfortable that past experience makes the need to consult tax and other experts about the design and implementation of property based or other compensation arrangements. While this may be the case in some instances, changing rules make it advisable that parties participating in these arrangements check their understanding to avoid stepping into unanticipated traps.

The longstanding provisions of Section 83 are part of a growing list of tax, securities and other rules that executives, board members, and other service providers and the businesses that receive their services may be required to successfully negotiate when seeking to use stock or other property as compensation for services.

Ongoing changes in the law and regulations concerning executive and other compensation transactions and evolving lender, shareholder and contractual relationships makes it advisable that parties participating in these and other compensation arrangements seek the advice of competent legal and accounting service providers with experience with these concerns.

Beyond Section 83, executive and other compensation arrangements increasingly also be impacted by new Code provisions like the complicated rules of Code Section 409A, shareholder approval, securities and other disclosure requirements, conflict of interest and other board and organizational governance, and a host of other requirements that may have ramifications well in excess of the tax consequences that were historically the primary concern in the design of these arrangements in past decades. For certain publically traded businesses, proper valuation, reporting and disclosure and in some instances, even shareholder approval of certain compensation arrangements may be critical. Likewise, IRS Form 990 and other emerging tax and other rules increasingly require that nonprofit health care, education and other non-profit organizsations be prepared to defend the design, valuation, and reporting of executive and certain other compensation arrangements . Even in closely held start ups and certain other organizations, founders and others often unintentionally incur significant liability by offering employees who do not qualify as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act or as accredited investors under securities law private placement exemptions or making other expensive compensation design missteps.. Amid these and other growing responsibilities, getting executive and other compensation arrangements right plays a critical role to the success of a business and the management of its liability.

For Help With Risk Management, Compliance & Other Management Concerns

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compensation, employee benefits and other workforce compliance, risk management or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a Council Representative on 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, and former Employee Benefits & Insurance Professor for the University of Dallas Graduate School of Management, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. Her experience includes extensive work advising businesses and executives on Code Section 83, 409A, 280G, and other tax, employment, securities and relates concerns relating to nonqualified and qualified deferred compensation, incentive stock option, severance, and other compensation and benefits arrangements. 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 access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Model Language May Aid Section 83(b) Elections Even As Executive & Other Special Compensation Carry Growing Liability Traps | Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Executive Compensation, Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Tax, Tax Qualification | Tagged: 83, 83(b) Executive Compensation, Deferred Compensation, Dodd-Frank, Shareholder Disclosure | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS To Offer Help For U.S. Citizens Overseas With Foreign Retirement Plans, Dual Citizenship Tax Issues

June 26, 2012

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is reaching out to help U.S. ex patriates and U.S. citizens with dual citizenship residing oversees to catch up on tax filings, deal with foreign retirement plan issues and help with other tax concerns.

On June 26, 2012, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman announced a series of what it calls ” common-sense steps” that the IRS is taking to U.S. citizens abroad get current with their tax obligations and resolve pension issues.

The IRS is aware that some U.S. taxpayers living abroad have failed to timely file U.S. federal income tax returns or Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs). Some of these taxpayers have recently become aware of their filing requirements and want to comply with the law. The 2012 deadline to file these reports is fast approaching on June 30, 2012. As part of these efforts, Shulman announced the IRS will provide a new option to help some U.S. citizens and others residing abroad who haven’t been filing tax returns and provide them a chance to catch up with their tax filing obligations if they owe little or no back taxes. The new procedure will go into effect on Sept. 1, 2012.

To help these taxpayers, the IRS offered the new procedures that will allow taxpayers who are low compliance risks to get current with their tax requirements without facing penalties or additional enforcement action. These people generally will have simple tax returns and owe $1,500 or less in tax for any of the covered years.

The IRS also announced that the new procedures will allow resolution of certain issues related to certain foreign retirement plans (such as Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plans). In some circumstances, tax treaties allow for income deferral under U.S. tax law, but only if an election is made on a timely basis. The streamlined procedures will be made available to resolve low compliance risk situations even though this election was not made on a timely basis.

Taxpayers using the new procedures announced today will be required to file delinquent tax returns along with appropriate related information returns for the past three years, and to file delinquent FBARs for the past six years. Submissions from taxpayers that present higher compliance risk will be subject to a more thorough review and potentially subject to an audit, which could cover more than three tax years.

The IRS also announced its offshore voluntary disclosure programs have exceeded the $5 billion mark, released new details regarding the voluntary disclosure program announced in January and closed a loophole used by some U.S. citizens. See IR-2012-64 for more details.

U.S. employers who employ executives or other U.S. citizens to work oversees as employees or consultants may want to share information about the new programs and the underlying compliance obligations that they are designed to address to promote awareness of the possible relief to those who might benefit from the announced relief. In addition, employees and other individuals who do or have recently lived, worked, or maintained accounts or other assets outside the United States also should consult with qualified tax advisors promptly about whether they have any unresolved liabilities or responsibilities and if so, concerning the advisability of using any of the newly announced programs to redress these concerns.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with labor and employment or other human resource, performance management, internal controls or compliance and risk management 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 access 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.

Comments Off on IRS To Offer Help For U.S. Citizens Overseas With Foreign Retirement Plans, Dual Citizenship Tax Issues | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: ex patriate, multinational, reporting, Tax, taxpayer identification numbers, Withholding | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New EEOC State Discrimination Charge Data Helpful Employer Risk Assessment Tool Discrimination Exposures Grow

June 26, 2012

Tables Present Employment Discrimination Statistics in User-Friendly Format

New employment discrimination charge statistics made available online by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May, 2012 provide a helpful risk assessment tool for private sector employers looking to understand and decide where to deploy resources to management their employment discrimination exposures.

In May, the EEOC put private sector workplace discrimination charge statistics for each of the nation’s 50 states and U.S. Territories for fiscal years 2009-2011 online. These data provide a look at EEOC charge receipts, broken down by the basis of discrimination, as well as the percent of total state and national charges. The state data tables are available online at http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges_by_state.cfm.

The EEOC plans to update the state data each fiscal year.

The availability of these statistics comes at an opportune time. Disability and other discrimination challenges are rising. Since taking office, President Obama has made enforcement of disability and other employment discrimination laws a top priority by both pursing enforcement directly and stepping up public outreach and education efforts to promote awareness and encourage private enforcement. These efforts have been further strengthened by statutory and regulatory amendments to disability discrimination and other discrimination laws. As a result of these developments and a tightening job market, discrimination claims are on the rise.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks , businesses generally should act to manage their exposures. Management should exercise caution to carefully design and implement employment discrimination and related employment policies. They should implement exit interview, hotline and other practices to help detect and resolve potential discrimination exposures early. They also should carefully document legitimate disciplinary and other non-discriminatory justifications for employment related activities and conduct regular training for management and employees.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information that could be helpful or hurtful in the event of a discriminatioj charge. Businesses need to ensure that all required records and statistics are collected. In addition, businesses also should consider strengthing record creation and retention efforts to help preserve other evidence that could be invaluable to defending charges and change the way that decisions are made and documented to position their organizations to more effectively demonstrate the defensibility of their employment and other business activities against potential nondiscrimination charges.

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New EEOC State Discrimination Charge Data Helpful Employer Risk Assessment Tool Discrimination Exposures Grow | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Obama’s Reaffirms Commitment Prosecute Disability Discrimination To Mark Omlstead Anniversary

June 22, 2012

Statements of President Obama made today (June 22, 2012) in celebration of the 13th anniversary of the June 22, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. are a reminder that U.S. businesses face a continuing and growing need to be on guard to defend against potential disability discrimination liabilities. Coupled with the well-documented activism of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

In Olmstead, the Supreme Court ruled in that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a website dedicated to Olmstead enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes.

These Justice Department efforts also are reflected in the companion enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute disability discrimination by the Labor Department Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in employment, the Department of Housing & Urban Development in housing and related areas, the Department of Education in education and related fields and a host of other agencies.

While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabilities Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures

As illustrated by the suit against Texas Wendy’s, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

The ADA generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Obama’s Reaffirms Commitment Prosecute Disability Discrimination To Mark Omlstead Anniversary | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Changing Individual Taxpayer ID Number Application Requirements

June 22, 2012

Interim Changes Intended To Promote Better Integrity of the ITIN Process

On June 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service announced interim changes to its procedures for issuing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) from now through the end of the year. Designed specifically for tax-administration purposes, ITINs are only issued to people who are not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number. ITINs play a critical role in the tax administration process and assist with the collection of taxes from foreign nationals, non-resident aliens and others who have filing or payment obligations under U.S. law. Businesses with foreign workers or service providers, others who may be impacted by rules should encourage early action to avoid difficulties in reporting later.

During this interim period, the IRS will only issue ITINs when applications include original documentation, such as passports and birth certificates, or certified copies of these documents from the issuing agency. During this interim period, ITINs will not be issued based on applications supported by notarized copies of documents. In addition, ITINs will not be issued based on applications submitted through certifying acceptance agents unless they attach original documentation or copies of original documents certified by the issuing agency. The changes, which are effective immediately, are designed to strengthen and protect the integrity of the ITIN process while minimizing the impact on taxpayers.

The procedures apply to most applicants submitting Form W-7, Application for IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. ITINs for most individuals generally are issued during the tax filing season with the submission of a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Because the April 17 filing deadline has passed, the IRS anticipates that a small number of taxpayers will need ITINs between now and the end of the year for these purposes.

According to today’s announcement, the IRS will issue final rules before the start of the 2013 filing season when most ITIN requests come in. The IRS will be gathering feedback and suggestions during the summer from stakeholders on what permanent procedures are appropriate as it reviews procedures for the ITIN program. The IRS says it will look to make long-term improvements to the program while minimizing barriers to individuals reporting their income and filing their tax returns.

During this interim period, people who need ITINS to get their tax return processed can do so by submitting by mail their original documentation or certified copies of their documentation. Documentation will be accepted at IRS walk-in sites but will be forwarded to the ITIN centralized site for processing. The IRS also has an additional set of questions and answers for ITIN applicants available.

Some categories of applicants are not impacted by these interim changes, including spouses and dependents of U.S. military personnel who need ITINs. People who should follow the current procedures outlined in the Form W-7 instructions include:

Military spouses and dependents without an SSN who need an ITIN (Military spouses use box e on Form W-7 and dependents use box d). Exceptions to the new interim document standards will be made for military family members satisfying the documentation requirements by providing a copy of the spouse or parent’s U.S. military identification, or applying from an overseas APO/FPO address.
Nonresident aliens applying for ITINs for the purpose of claiming tax treaty benefits (use boxes a and h on Form W-7). Non-resident alien applicants generally need ITINs for reasons besides filing a U.S. tax return. This is necessary for nonresident aliens who may be subject to third-party withholding for various income, such as certain gaming winnings or pension income, or need an ITIN for information reporting purposes. While existing documentation standards will be maintained only for these applicants, scrutiny of the documents will be heightened. ITIN applications of this category that are accompanied by a US tax return will be subject to the new interim document standards.

The IRS may require some taxpayers who have already filed applications to furnish additional documentation directly to the IRS. No additional action is required for people who have already filed ITIN requests unless they are contacted by the IRS.

More information about ITINs can be found at 2012 ITIN Review Frequently Asked Questions.

The changes may impact a wide range of employers and the individuals who provide service to them. Employers dealing with service providers who may be impacted by these rules should act early to request and encourage delivery of taxpayer identification numbers from individuals that may be impacted by these requirements.

For Help or More Information

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.

Comments Off on IRS Changing Individual Taxpayer ID Number Application Requirements | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: reporting, Tax, taxpayer identification numbers, Withholding | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Moves To Promote Non-Union Employee Use of Collective Action Rights By Launching Webpage

June 18, 2012

The National Labor Relations Board is launching a new website page focused on promoting awareness and encourage the exercise of rights to employees to act together for their mutual aid and protection, even if they are not in a union, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

As part of its aggressive commitment to promote and support union organizing and other collective action by employees under the Obama Administration, the NLRB in recent years has stepped up investigatory and enforcement activities on behalf of non-union employees. The right to engage in certain types of concerted activity was written into the original 1935 National Labor Relations Act’s Section 7, which states that: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities.”

Non-union concerted activity accounts for more than 5% of the agency’s recent caseload.

The new webpage launched June 18, 2012 here seeks to promote awareness and use of these and other collective action rights under the NLRA by sharing stories of more than a dozen recent cases involving protected concerted activity. Examples of these cases include stories of A construction crew fired after refusing to work in the rain near exposed electrical wires; a customer service representative who lost her job after discussing her wages with a coworker; an engineer at a vegetable packing plant fired after reporting safety concerns affecting other employees; a paramedic fired after posting work-related grievances on Facebook; and poultry workers fired after discussing their grievances with a newspaper reporter.

“A right only has value when people know it exists,” said NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce. “We think the right to engage in protected concerted activity is one of the best kept secrets of the National Labor Relations Act, and more important than ever in these difficult economic times. Our hope is that other workers will see themselves in the cases we’ve selected and understand that they do have strength in numbers.”

In addition to the new webpage, the NLRA also has undertaken efforts to promote employee awareness of NLRA rights by imposing new employer poster requirements, has attacked the use of mandatory arbibtration provisions by employers as prohibited under the NLRA, and has pursued a wide range of regulatory and enforcement policy changes that seek to strengthen the power of organized labor. In light of this growing activism, employers should continue to strengthen their labor-management policies and practices to mitigate the growing labor exposures that result from this activist agenda.

For Help or More Information

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 more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access 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.

Comments Off on NLRB Moves To Promote Non-Union Employee Use of Collective Action Rights By Launching Webpage | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: NLRA, NLRB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Defensibility of Criminal & Other Background Check Practices In Light of Labor Department Non-Discrimination Regulation & Enforcement Emphasis

May 25, 2012

Employers, job banks, recruiters and other parties that conduct and rely upon criminal background checks for purposes of screening applicants or making other employment decisions should check and update their practices in response to the announced plans of the U.S. Department of Labor to expand and enforce limitations on employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records as well as the criminal background check requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other applicable laws.

While criminal or other background checks often are mandated or otherwise business justified, employers and others conducting or using background check information need to understand and comply with legal requirements about the use and administration of criminal or other background checks.

Potential Employment Discrimination Exposures From Criminal Background Checks

Over the past several months, Labor Department officials have identified protection of individuals with criminal backgrounds against employment discrimination as a policy and enforcement priority.

In keeping with this goal, the Labor Department Employment and Training Administration (ETA), with the Civil Rights Center (CRC). on May 25, 2012 published updated training guidance for about exclusions based on criminal records, and how they are relevant to the existing nondiscrimination obligations for the public workforce system and certain other entities that receive federal financial assistance to operate Job Banks, to provide assistance to job seekers in locating and obtaining employment, and to assist employers by screening and referring qualified applicants in Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 31-11 (TEGL) along with the following accompanying guidance documents:

Meet FCRA Criminal & Other Background Check Requirements

When conducting such a criminal or other background check using a third-party or the internet, care should be taken to comply with the applicable purpose, notice and consent requirements for conducting third-party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law.

Since criminal and other background investigations generally qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, employers, recruiters, job banks and other parties conducting background checks for employment related purposes risk significant liability for conducting these activities without providing the proper notifications and obtaining necessary consents. Additional requirements often also may apply under applicable state laws, labor-management contracts, government contracting requirements or other similar requirements. Consequently, before doing any credit or other background check, employers or others should ensure that they have the policies, disclosures, data security and written consents required to comply with the FCRA and other laws.

With these procedures in place, employers or others planning to use criminal or other background checks then should work to manage discrimination and other potential risks associated with potential challenges to their use of the information.

Among other things, businesses should carefully document the business justification for their use of the background check and restrict the data they request and receive to information relevant to that purpose. The collection and receipt of this information should be structured and managed in such a way to mitigate employment discrimination, privacy and other legal risks and to promote defensibility. For instance, proper procedures should be used to lower the risk of a pattern of prohibited discrimination on race, national origin, disability or other similar employment discrimination laws. Likewise, collection or receipt of information such as bankruptcy history or other liability sensitive information should be avoided unless a legally defensible need and appropriate procedures governing use can be demonstrated in operation. Care also should be taken to apply the criteria uniformly. Given ADA, GINA, FACTA and other privacy concerns, employers also should specifically check their data collection and protection procedures for adequacy.

To help with these and other concerns, consider defining and documenting in advance the relevant criteria for the position and why it is relevant. Where possible, try to avoid getting information beyond that defined as relevant which could raise sensitivities. Since the FCRA requires notice if adverse hiring decisions are made, employers also should carefully evaluate and document the basis of their decisions when deciding not to hire or promote individuals based on this information and appropriately safeguard this information against improper use or disclosure.

For Help Or Additional Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your background check or other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, 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 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on human resources, recruitment, employee benefits, compensation, credentialing, promotion and discipline and related workforce and risk management matters.

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 employment and other services arrangements and assocaited employee benefit, compensation, reductions in force and other severance and other human resources, employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s r 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, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press 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 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 ww.solutionslawpress.com.

Comments Off on Tighten Defensibility of Criminal & Other Background Check Practices In Light of Labor Department Non-Discrimination Regulation & Enforcement Emphasis | ADA, Affirmative Action, Bankruptcy, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Tax | Tagged: background check, criminal background check, Discrimination, Employer, FCRA, job bank | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Challenges Mandatory Arbitration Provisions

May 1, 2012

Employers should check handbooks or other policies include provisions that require employees to agree to mandatory individual arbitration or other waivers of rights to sue, file regulatory charges or seek other remedies should evaluate the advisability of updating those policies in light of recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) actions like those announced yesterday (April 30, 2012) against 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (24-Hour Fitness).

In D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184, the Board earlier this year found that the employer, a home building company, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining, as a condition of employment, a mandatory arbitration agreement that did not allow its employees to file joint, class, or collective employment-related claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial.

As a follow-up to that decision, the NLRB now is charging 24-Hour Fitness with violating federal labor law by insisting that all employment-related disputes be resolved by individual arbitration. A California-based corporation which operates fitness centers across the country, 24-Hour Fitness requires employees to agree in writing, as a condition of employment, to forego any rights to “collective or class action” lawsuits or arbitrations. Applying the rule it adopted earlier this year in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184, the NLRB is charging this violates the collective bargaining and organizational rights of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The charges against 24-Hour Fitness stem from a charge filed by an employee at the 24 Hour Fitness center in San Ramon, California. Since at least the summer of 2010, the NLRB claims that the company has enforced its no-class-action policy by asserting it in litigation brought by employees in many cases, seven of which are cited in the complaint. In each case, employees, sought to bring workplace-related claims, such as wage and hour violations, on a class-wide basis. In response, 24-Hour Fitness sought to compel the employees to submit their common claims to individual arbitrations, citing the policy in its handbook.

The complaint calls for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on June 11, and seeks an order requiring the company’s fitness centers nationwide to stop maintaining and enforcing that portion of the policy that prohibits collective and class action, and to notify all judicial and arbitral forums in which it has opposed such action.

The NLRB position regarding mandatory arbitration policies is of a series of activist positions that it has taken over the past year. In light of this growing activism, employers should continue to strengthen their labor-management policies and practices to mitigate the growing labor exposures that result from this activist agenda.

For Help or More Information

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 access 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.

Comments Off on NLRB Challenges Mandatory Arbitration Provisions | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: NLRA, NLRB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination

April 18, 2012

Killeen Fast-Food Restaurant Refused to Hire Hearing-Impaired Applicant Despite His Qualifications, Federal Agency Charges

Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabililties Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration.

Wendy’s Suit

The EEOC charges in its suit against Texas Wendy’s, Case No. 6:12-CV-00091-WSS in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system utilized by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published in this electronic Solutions Law publication available for review here. 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 at here.

Comments Off on EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DC Court Enjoins Implementation of NLRB Poster Rule

April 17, 2012

The District Court for the District of Columbia today (April 17, 2012) granted employers a temporary reprieve from the obligation to comply with a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) poster mandate scheduled to take effect April 30, 2012.

The NLRB rule that was scheduled to take effect on April 30 would dictate that most private sector employers post a 11-by-17-inch notice informing workers of certain union organizing and other labor-management relations rights under the National Labor Relations Act using language dictated by the NLRB. The notice is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, which has more information on posting requirements and NLRB jurisdiction.

Facing litigation challenging the rule, the NLRB announced on December 23, 2011 that it would delay the deadline to comply with the rule until April 30, 2012. Today’s court ruling enjoins the NLRB from enforcing the new requirement pending additional litigation.

In addition to the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, a South Carolina Court also recently issued rulings questioning the NLRB’s enforcement mechanisms under the impending rule.

In response to today’s D.C. Circuit Court decision, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said of the recent decisions, “We continue to believe that requiring employers to post this notice is well within the Board’s authority, and that it provides a genuine service to employees who may not otherwise know their rights under our law.” Nevertheless, the NLRB announced today thaat it plans to delay further implementation of the poster rule by its regional offices pending the outcome of the impending litigation.

While the poster requirement is delayed, the NLRB continues to pursue an active regulatory and enforcement agenda. See, e.g., Employers Face New Labor-Management Exposures Under Activist National Labor Relations Board. Employers should continue to strengthen their labor-management policies and practices to mitigate the growing labor exposures that result from this activist agenda.

For Help or More Information

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.

Comments Off on DC Court Enjoins Implementation of NLRB Poster Rule | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

March 21 New Deadline To Comment On Proposal To Extend Minimum Wage, Overtime Rules To In Home Care Workers

March 9, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has extended until March 12 the comment period for its proposed rule to provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly 2 million workers who provide in-home care services. See here.

In December, 2011, the WHD published a proposed rule that would expand minimum wage and overtime protections to all home care workers employed by third parties, such as staffing agencies. It also would clarify that individuals performing skilled in-home care work are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay. However, individuals engaged by families for true companionship or fellowship activities, such as visiting with friends or pursuing hobbies, still would be considered “companions” and not be required to meet the act’s labor standards provisions. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [1] (NPRM).

Among other things, the NPRM proposes to revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

To more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion;
To limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services; and
To provide that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

When Congress expanded protections to “domestic service” workers in 1974, it exempted casual babysitters and companions for the aged and inform from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and exempted live-in domestic workers from the overtime pay requirement only. While WHD has left regulations governing this exemption substantially unchanged since first issued in 1975, it now believes the in-home care service industry. workers employed by in-home care staffing agencies are not the workers that Congress envisioned in enacting the companionship exemption (i.e., neighbors performing elder sitting).

As a result of these determines, WHD is moving to modify its existing rules to broaden protections for professionally employed home care workers as well as outreaching to inform employers and workers about the requirements that it perceives employers of these workers must meet.

The proposed tightening of regulations for home health workers follows a general toughening by WHD of its regulation and enforcement of wage and hour laws in the health care industry. 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 Department 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.

Many have expressed concerns about the potential added costs that changes proposed in the NPRM would trigger in providing in home health and companion care for aging and disabled family members. The extension of the comment deadline provides added time for members of the public concerned about these rules to share their input.

Whether or not the proposed rule is adopted, the growing aggressiveness of the WHD and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating minimum wage and overtime rules means 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.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with these and other human resources or health care concerns 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.

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.

Comments Off on March 21 New Deadline To Comment On Proposal To Extend Minimum Wage, Overtime Rules To In Home Care Workers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints & Formal Proceedings

March 9, 2012

The National Labor Relations Board Summary of Activities for Fiscal Year 2011 (Summary) released by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon this week reflects the increased activism and streamlined handling of matters by the NLRB in 2011

Statistics in the Summary reflect an increase in unfair labor practice complaints as well as an increase in the number of complaints that NLRB Regional offices found to merit formal prosecutions. According to the Summary, In FY 2011, the Regional Offices issued 1,342 complaints as compared to 1,243 in FY 2010. In addition to issuing almost 100 more complaints, the percentage of unfair labor practice cases in which a Regional Director determined that formal proceedings were warranted (the merit factor) rose from 35.6% in FY 2010 to 37%. Since 1980, the merit factor has fluctuated between 32% and 40%.

In addition to these results, the General Counsel chose to highlight accomplishments by the NLRB in expediting the handling of investigations and proceedings in several areas. NLRB cut its working inventory of cases by moving matters through faster. The working inventory of cases at the end of FY 2011 was 4,421, compared to 4,063 at the end of FY 2010. Other processing efficiency highlights included:

91.7% of all initial elections were conducted within 56 days of the filing of the petition.
Initial elections in union representation elections were conducted in a median of 38 days from the filing of the petition.
A 93% settlement rate was achieved in the Regional Offices in meritorious unfair labor practice cases.
The Regional Offices won 87% of Board and Administrative Law Judge unfair labor practice and compliance decisions in whole or in part in FY 2011.
A total of $60,514,922 was recovered on behalf of employees as backpay or reimbursement of fees, dues, and fines, with 1,644 employees offered reinstatement.
The Agency exceeded two of its three ambitious overarching goals and came close to achieving the third, closing 84.7% of all representation cases within 100 days (target 85%), 72.5% of all unfair labor practice cases within 120 days (target 71.2%), and 83.2% of all meritorious unfair labor practice cases within 365 days (target 80.2%). The target for each 2011 overarching goal was higher than in FY 2010 and has been increased for FY 2012.
Agency representatives participated in over 600 outreach events during FY 2011.

Other statistics of note include:

The NLRB”s total case intake during FY 2011 declined to 24,990, compared to 26,585 cases in FY 2010, representing a 5.9% decrease in overall intake. Unfair labor practice case intake declined 5.1% compared to 2010..Total representation case intake declined 2,813, a 12.2% decrease from the FY 2010.
Petitions filed in certification and decertification decreased 11.2% from 2,969 in FY 2010 to 2,634 in FY 2011. Petitions filed in unit deauthorization, unit amendment and unit clarification (UD, AC and UC) cases decreased by 23.8% from the previous year’s intake, with the filing of 179 petitions in FY 2011 compared to 235 filed in FY 2010.

For Help or More Information

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.

Comments Off on NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints & Formal Proceedings | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Sullivan University System to Pay $483,000 in Back Wages Overtime Violations Stemming From Worker Misclassifications

March 8, 2012

Sullivan University System, Inc. learned the hard way that U.S employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors, as exempt for wage and hour law purposes or otherwise increasingly risk investigation and enforcement from federal and state agencies targeting perceived misclassification abuses.

Following an investigation by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, Kentucky based Sullivan University System Inc. will pay $483,201 in back wages to 248 employees who the Department found it wrongfully denied overtime pay while working as admissions officers and high school representatives. The investigation found that employees were incorrectly classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the employer failed to keep accurate records of the employees’ hours.

The Sullivan University System, Inc. settlement provides another example of the growing risks that U.S. employers face from misclassifying workers as exempt employees for purposes of wage and hour and overtime laws. As a result of the mischaracterization of workers as contractors that the Labor Department determined to qualify as employees for purposes of wage and hour and overtime laws, the Labor Department found the employer failed to pay required overtime and to maintain required time records in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wage and hour laws are only one of a myriad of areas in which the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service and other federal and state regulators increasingloy 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 Obama Administration is targeting employers that misclassify workers for enforcement.

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.

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 MOUs 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.

Employers Urged To Audit & Strengthen Worker Classification Practices

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.

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.

Comments Off on Sullivan University System to Pay $483,000 in Back Wages Overtime Violations Stemming From Worker Misclassifications | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New DOL Final Rules Tighten Requirements For Employers To Hire Alien Workers Using H-2B Visas

February 21, 2012

Employers of workers relying on H-2B visas for eligibility to work will need to update their practices to comply with a new Final Rule on the H-2B program issued February 21, 2012 by the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division.

Effective April 23, 2012, the Final Rule amends Labor Department regulations governing the certification of the employment of nonimmigrant workers performing temporary or seasonal non-agricultural labor or services and the enforcement of the obligations applicable to employers under the H-2B program. Among other things, the Final Rule:

Revises the process by which employers obtain a temporary labor certification from the Labor Department for use in petitioning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to employ a nonimmigrant worker in H-2B status;
Establishes new rules providing increased worker protections for both U.S. and foreign workers;
Creates a national electronic job registry for all H-2B job orders to improve U.S. worker access to these temporary jobs;
Contains provisions to enhance recruitment of U.S. workers from across the country;
Increases the amount of time during which U.S. workers must be recruited and hired; and
Requires the rehiring of former employees when available.

U.S. employers need to exercise care to properly manage and maintain appropriate documentation showing compliance with applicable Visa, I-9 eligibility to work, and other applicable Immigration and Customs law requirements impacting their recruitment and employment of foreign and other workers. Violation of these requirements can expose employers to substantial civil and even criminal liability. At the same time, all employers also need to tread carefully to manage the significant employment discrimination liabilities that can arise from charges of improper discrimination against workers in violation of national origin, race and other federal and state nondiscrimination laws. See, e.g. Manufacturer’s Excessive I-9 Documentation Triggers Discrimination Liability.

When reviewing the adequacy of existing practices and administering these practices, employers should keep in mind the advisability of ensuring appropriate compliance and risk management of these responsibilities both with regard to workers performing services directly for their organizations in the capacity of employees, as well as workers providing services as independent contractors, leased employees or pursuant to other contracted services arrangements.

When designing and administering these processes, employers also generally should keep in mind that alien workers hired in violation of I-9 eligibility to work requirements generally still continue to enjoy the protection of the employment discrimination, wage and hour, anti-retaliation and other laws that otherwise would apply to other similarly situated employees. Accordingly, employers should exercise care to properly coördinate their responsibilities to promote their ability to demonstrate proper collection of required eligibility to work documentation, proper classification for worker classification, wage and hour and other laws, and appropriate adherence to nondiscrimination and other employment, tax and other applicable laws and regulations.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with these or other human resources, risk management or compliance 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, I-9 and other immigration and customs, 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.

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.

Comments Off on New DOL Final Rules Tighten Requirements For Employers To Hire Alien Workers Using H-2B Visas | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA $1Million Award Against AirTran Airways Highlights Retaliation Risks

January 18, 2012

A million dollar plus backpay award announced by the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) reminds U.S. employer of the growing importance of taking steps to manage whistleblower and other retaliation claims when dealing with employees who have reported possible safety, discrimination or other activities protected under Federal or state whistleblower or other anti-retaliation laws.

On January 17, 2012, OSHA issued an order requiring AirTran Airways AirTran Airways, a subsidiary of Dallas, Texas-based Southwest Airlines Co., to reinstate and pay more than $1 million in backpay plis interest and compensatory damages to a former pilot who charged AriTran fired him in retaliation for his reporting numerous mechanical concerns.

According to OSHA, the reinstatement and backpay award follows an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program in which OSHA found reasonable cause to believe that the termination of the pilot, whose name is withheld as part of OSHA’s policy, was an act of retaliation in violation of the whistleblower provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, known as AIR21.

According to OSHA, the pilot’s complaint alleged that the airline removed him from flight status on Aug. 23, 2007, pending an investigative hearing regarding a sudden spike in the pilot’s mechanical malfunction reports, or PIREPS. The airline held an internal investigative hearing on Sept. 6, 2007, that lasted 17 minutes. Seven days later, the airline terminated the pilot’s employment, claiming that he did not satisfactorily answer a question regarding the spike in reports. OSHA found that the pilot did not refuse to answer any questions during the hearing, answers to questions were appropriate, and the action taken by the airline was retaliatory.

Either party to the case can file an appeal with the Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges, but such an appeal does not stay the preliminary reinstatement order.

AirTran Airways is a subsidiary of AirTran Holdings Inc. with headquarters in Orlando. On May 2, 2011, Southwest Airlines completed the acquisition of AirTran Holdings Inc. and now operates AirTran Airways as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provision of AIR21, as well as 20 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities, trucking, workplace health and safety, nuclear, pipeline, environmental, rail, maritime, health care, consumer product and food safety laws. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program.

These whistleblower and anti-retaliation provisions are just a small fraction of the growing list of federal and state laws that provide whistleblower or other anti-retaliation protections to employees and others for reporting known or suspected violations or engaging in other activities protected by the applicable law. Other examples include federal employment discrimination, securities, tax, customs, immigration, labor, family or military leave, employee benefits, privacy, antitrust, and a wide range of other laws. Because the prior reporting of information or other exercise or attempted exercise of protected rights often can create presumptions which employers may be required to rebut to avoid whistleblower or other liability under many of these laws, employees increasingly make claims or point to prior reports or activities as a means of challenging or disputing termination or other undesired employer actions.

To better position themselves to prevent or defend against these types of claims, employers need to be prepared both to demonstrate the appropriateness of their employment and discipline actions, as well as to rebut claims of retaliation. As part of these efforts, employers among other things should:

Carefully document and administer employee hiring, promotion, discipline and other practices to document their administration in accordance with applicable law based on valid performance based business justifications;

Clearly communicate and educate management and other employees about the employer’s policies against retaliation and procedures for reporting suspected problems;

Review employee terminations and other actions for patterns or other evidence of correlation to prior protected activities by employees that might evidence potential discrimination or other retaliation;

Establish and communicate clear procedures for reporting potential legal or policy violations that might for the basis of retaliation or whistleblower claims;

Conduct prompt, well-documented investigations of all reports of potential compliance or safety concerns, as well as retaliation claims;

Give clear, well-documented instructions to managers and others involved in investigations or other compliance efforts against retaliation or other misconduct;

Establish and administer monitoring and oversight processes and procedures for possible retaliation or other misconduct against protected parties; and

Provide exit interview and other opportunities for employees to share possible retaliation or other concerns with responsible management trained to properly investigate and redress these concerns.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with these or other human resources, internal controls or risk management 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 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, compliance, 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 access 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.

Comments Off on OSHA $1Million Award Against AirTran Airways Highlights Retaliation Risks | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employer, Employment, employment law, Health Care, Independent Contractor, OSHA, Overtime, payroll tax, Retaliation, Safety, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Final Rule Defines Recreation Vehicle For Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

January 10, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs has issued a final rule implementing the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusion for recreational vessel workers. The rule defines what constitutes a “recreational vessel” when applying the exclusion.

The LHWCA provides workers (or their survivors in the case of death) compensation for injuries related to maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining areas.

Before 2009, the LHWCA excluded workers who repaired or dismantled recreational vessels fewer than 65 feet in length from coverage if they were covered by a state workers’ compensation program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expanded this exclusion by eliminating the 65-foot limitation. Now, workers who repair recreational vessels of any length or dismantle them for repair are excluded from LHWCA coverage if they are covered under a state workers’ compensation law.

The final rule generally uses the U.S. Coast Guard’s standards for defining a recreational vessel. However, it adds two provisions the Labor Department intends to make it easier to apply these standards in the LHWCA context. First, a manufacturer or builder may determine whether a vessel is recreational within the meaning of the regulation based on the vessel’s design rather than on its end use. Second, noncommercial vessels that are recreational by design and owned or chartered by the federal or a state government fall within the recreational vessel definition.

Read the final rule here.

For Help or More Information

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.

Comments Off on Labor Department Final Rule Defines Recreation Vehicle For Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Employment, Longshore, Occupational Injury, workers compensation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Dallas Bar Journal Article Cautions Employers Must Take Holistic Approach To Address Worker Misclassification Risks

December 27, 2011

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer’s cautions that 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.

Ms. Stamer discusses the need for employers to take a holistic approach to assessing and addressing worker classification risks in her article, “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.

U.S employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors, as exempt for payroll or other tax, wage and hour, immigration, and a wide range of other legal purposes or otherwise increasingly risk investigation and enforcement from federal and state agencies targeting perceived misclassification abuses. While U.S. employers should review and correct as needed worker misclassifications that could result in violations laws in light of the growing enforcement emphasis and interagency coordination targeting employers that violate federal or state tax, labor and other laws by misclassifying workers, employers should evaluate and address these concerns on a holistic, rather than peice meal basis.The Obama Administration is targeting employers that misclassify workers for enforcement.

Agency officials and members of Congress have sent numerous messages to U.S. employers to clean up their worker classification practices. For instance, Labor Department enforcement actions increasingly show its employer misclassification audit and enforcement emphasis. See, e.g.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; 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 hear testimony and 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. Agency officials arefueling and responding to Congressional worker classification concerns by highlighting issues in Congressional testimony and other communications. In her November 3, 2011 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and the Workforce, for instance, U.S. Labor Department Wage & Hour Division (WHD) Deputy Administrator (WHD) Nancy 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).

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

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. The coordination and interrelationship of issues that Ms. Leppink testified about in her November 3 Subscommittee testimony shows that employers need to take a holistic approach in evaluating and addressing their worker classification exposures.

For Help or More Information

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.

Comments Off on Stamer Dallas Bar Journal Article Cautions Employers Must Take Holistic Approach To Address Worker Misclassification Risks | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Urged To Strengthen Worker Classification Defenses As Obama Administration Targets Employers Misclassifying Workers

December 26, 2011

U.S employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors, as exempt for wage and hour law purposes or otherwise increasingly risk investigation and enforcement from federal and state agencies targeting perceived misclassification abuses.

U.S. employers should review and correct as needed worker misclassifications that could result in violations of federal wage and hour or other employment, tax or other laws in light of the growing enforcement emphasis and interagency coordination targeting employers that violate federal or state tax, labor and other laws by misclassifying workers. Testimony of a top Labor Department official confirms that the Obama Administration has employers that misclassify workers in its sights and is ready to take swift action to punish their noncompliance.

Aggressive Employer Worker Classification Practices Under Seige

The Obama Administration is targeting employers that misclassify workers for enforcement.

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. 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).

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

Employers Urged To Audit & Strengthen Worker Classification Practices

For Help or More Information

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.

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2/27 Deadline For Employers To Comment On DOL Proposed Rule Changes Extending Minimum Wage & Overtime Rules To More Home Caregiver Workers

December 25, 2011

February 27, 2012 will be the deadline for interested employers to comment on changes that the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) proposes to make to its rules on when its minimum wage and overtime protections apply to workers who provide in-home care services for the elderly and infirm. The proposal will revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act to more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion, and to limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services. In addition, the Department proposes that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

If adopted as proposed, the proposed rules will significantly expand the number of home health care and other home care workers covered by minimum wage and overtime requirements. As proposed, the proposed regulation will revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

To more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion;
To limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services; and
To provide that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

Coupled with these and other enforcement efforts against health industry employers, WHD’s announcement of plans to tighten rules for home care givers. In connection with its announcement of the planned regulatory changes, for instance, WHD highlighted the following guidance about the wage and hour rules that employers of home care workers can anticipate being required to meet when employing these workers:

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes an employer to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability.

In light of the proposed regulatory changes and demonstrated willingness of WHD 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.

This notice of proposed rulemaking will be available for comment beginning December 27, 2011 at www.regulations.gov. The comment period will close on February 27, 2012.

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

If you need help in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions under these or other laws, 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 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 implement, audit, manage and defend 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. 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, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, 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 access 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.

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register.

Comments Off on 2/27 Deadline For Employers To Comment On DOL Proposed Rule Changes Extending Minimum Wage & Overtime Rules To More Home Caregiver Workers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Overtime, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Get Up To Date On Details of New De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments By Participating In 12/12 HIPAA Update Web Workshop

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update