Justice Department Suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies For Violating Army Reserve Member’s Rights Highlights Expanding Employer Military Leave Risks & Liabilities

December 1, 2009

The Justice Department yesterday (November 30, 2009) filed suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies for allegedly willfully violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by discriminating against Eugene C. Burress, a U.S. Army Reserve member, on the basis of his military service and by failing to offer Burress an appropriate reemployment position when he returned from military service. The 22nd USERRA lawsuit filed during 2009 by the Civil Rights Division on behalf of service members, the lawsuit highlights the growing liability risks that employers face for failing to properly comply with the evolving military leave mandates of USERRA and other applicable laws.

The MasTec Lawsuit

In a complaint filed in federal court in West Virginia, the Justice Department alleges that, in January 2008, Burress, then a field technician supervisor at MasTec’s Martinsburg, W.Va., office, was called to active duty in the U.S. Army, and that Burress notified his supervisor at MasTec of his upcoming military service. Prior to giving this notice of call to active duty, Burress’ supervisor had informed Burress that the site manager position at the office would be vacant soon and offered the position to Burress when it became available. Burress accepted this offer. While Burress was engaged in military service, however, MasTec promoted another MasTec employee to site manager. Burress filed a complaint with the Labor Department’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, which investigated and attempted to resolve Burress’s USERRA complaint before referring it to the Justice Department. The Justice Department seeks back pay and other benefits Burress would have received had MasTec reemployed him as required by USERRA, as well as liquidated damages for MasTec’s willful violation of USERRA.

Evolving USERRA & Other Military Service Related Leave Requirements Make Compliance Review Advisable

USERRA prohibits an employer discriminating against an employee if the employee’s service or obligation for service in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such service or obligation for service. USERRA also requires that service members on leave be offered the opportunity to continue group health plan coverage for certain periods while on leave.  Subject to certain limitations, USERRA also requires that employers offer reemployment promptly to service members who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the military in the same positions or in positions comparable to the positions they would have held had their employment not been interrupted by military service and be reinstated to all benefits and other rights of employment at that time.  Although Final Regulations construing these requirements were issued in 2005, many employers have yet to update their practices and policies to comply with the current USERRA mandates.  Furthermore, compliance with these mandates often creates various practical operational challenges even for U.S. businesses who fully understand these rules. 

In addition to USERRA, U.S. businesses also may need to update their policies and procedures to comply with new military leave related rights recently extended to service members and their families under amendments to the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1990 (FMLA) that took effect on January 28, 2008 under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2008 NDA).  In addition to the otherwise applicable provisions of the FMLA, the 2008 NDA amended the FMLA to require under certain circumstances that covered employers grant FMLA Leave:

  • For up to 26 weeks FMLA Leave to a FMLA-covered employees who is the spouse, parent, child, or next of kin of a service member who incurred a serious injury or illness on active duty in the Armed Forces (Caregiver Leave); and
  • For up to 12 weeks of FMLA Leave to a FMLA-covered employee who has a spouse, parent, or child who is on or has been called to (or notified of an impending call or order to) active duty in the Armed Forces in response to an event that is a “qualifying exigency” (Military Exigency Leave).

Final regulations implementing the 2008 NDA FMLA mandates and other FMLA requirements took effect on January 16, 2009.

With these regulations barely dry, however, Congress this Fall further expanded these FMLA protections as part of amendments enacted by the National Defense Authorizations Act 2010 (2010 NDAA) that took effect October 29, 2009. Among other things, the 2010 NDAA:

  • Expanded FMLA Military Exigency Leave to apply to active duty service members deployed to a foreign country. Previously, Military Exigency Leave only applied to reservists.
  • Expanded Military Caregiver Leave to include care for a service member who aggravates a prior injury or illness during the course of his military service. Previously, aggravation of an illness or injury did not qualify for Military Caregiver Leave; and
  • For periods after the Secretary of Labor issues regulations defining the term “qualifying injury or illness” for a veteran, extended Military Caregiver Leave to include veterans who undergo medical treatment, recuperation or therapy for a qualifying injury or illness, as long as the service member was a member of the reserves or armed forces at any time during the five years before the veteran undergoes treatment. Military Caregiver Leave previously was not inapplicable to veterans.

Following these amendments, Congress continues to contemplate various other proposed expansions to these and other military service employment and other rights.

The recent changes to federal employment protections for military service members and their families and the increased emphasis on enforcement of these requirements make it advisable that employers review and revise their military leave, family leave and other employment policies,, employee benefit plans, and other policies and practices for compliance with current rule, while remaining alert for statutory or regulatory changes to these requirements.  Employers also should confirm that their employment posters and leave notification documentation and communications are up to date.

While reviewing current military service related leave policies and practices, employers also should confirm that they complying with recently revised Internal Revenue Service rules about reporting and withholding on differential pay paid to employees during military leave. This Spring, the Internal Revenue Service updated its guidance about these requirements.  Under Revenue Ruling 2009-11, employers that pay differential pay to employees absent on active duty military leave job must treat as taxable wages for income tax purposes, withhold income tax on and report as W-2 wages military duty differential pay.  However, Revenue Ruling 2009-11 states employers need not withhold or pay Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) or Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”) taxes on those payments.

If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending these or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney of your choice.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, risk management  and internal controls matters. Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment laws, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. She has counseled and represented employers on these and other workforce matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.  Examples of other recent updates you may have missed include:

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 here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Justice Department Suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies For Violating Army Reserve Member’s Rights Highlights Expanding Employer Military Leave Risks & Liabilities | Absenteeism, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Internal Controls, Leave, Military Leave, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New GINA Genetic Information Based Employment Discrimination & Confidentiality Mandates Take Effect

November 24, 2009

Updated Employment Poster, Policies & Procedures Required Immediately

Employers, unions, employment agencies, employment training agencies and their agents face significant new employment discrimination liability risks if they violate new genetic information-based employment non-discrimination or fail to comply with genetic information confidentiality requirements that took effect under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) on Saturday, November 21, 2009.  Employers need immediately to update their employment posters, carefully audit their existing records and practices to identify existing information and practices that may create special risks under GINA and take appropriate action to comply with the GINA rules. Employers needing an updated poster can find a copy on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website here.

Under the newly effective employment provisions of Title II of GINA, Federal law now prohibits employers of 15 or more employees and certain other entities from using individuals’ “genetic information” when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions, requires “genetic information” be kept separately and confidential, and prohibits retaliation. 

When assessing their risk under GINA, employers should be careful not to overlook or underestimate the genetic information collected or possessed by their organizations and the risks attendant to this information.  Many employers will be surprised by the breadth of the depth of “genetic information.”   GINA defines “genetic information” broadly as including not only information about genetic tests about an individual or his family member as well as information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.   GINA also specifies that any reference to genetic information concerning an individual or family member includes genetic information of a fetus carried by a pregnant woman and an embryo legally held by an individual or family member utilizing an assisted reproductive technology.  Pending issuance of regulatory guidance, GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” is likely to present a liability trap door for many unsuspecting employers.

Failing to properly address GINA compliance could expose employers to substantial risk.  Violation of the employment provisions of Title II subjects an employer to potentially significant civil judgments like those that generally are available for race, sex, and other federal employment discrimination claims covered by the Civil Rights Act.  Accordingly, employers and others who have not already done so should act quickly to review and update their policies and procedures to manage their new compliance and liability exposures under GINA Title II.

While the agency responsible for construing and enforcing Title II of GINA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), to date has published only limited guidance about it, the absence of this final guidance should not be read by employers as a sign their compliance may be delayed.  While not yet issued in final form, proposed regulations interpreting Title II of GINA accessible here published by the EEOC in March, 2009  and a subsequently released factsheet accessible here published by the EEOC in May, 2009 titled “Background Information for EEOC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” provide insights about how the EEOC may be expected to view its provisions.   While many employers have delayed taking action to update their policies and procedures in hopes that final guidance would be forthcoming before Title II took effect, time has now run out.  Accordingly, employers who have not already done so should act quickly to implement all necessary changes to position themselves to defend against a potential claim that their organization may have violated GINA Title II. 

Employment-Related Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Rules In Focus

Applicable to employers, unions, employment agencies, employment training agencies and their agencies based on genetic information by employers, Title II imposes sweeping prohibitions against employment discrimination based on genetic information.  Title II generally has three components:

Employment Discrimination Prohibited.  Section 202 of GINA makes it illegal for an employer:

  • To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee, or otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee;
  • To limit, segregate, or classify the employees of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee as an employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee; or
  • To request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee except as specifically permitted by GINA and otherwise applicable law.

GINA §§ 203 and 204 extend similar prohibitions to employment agencies, labor unions and training programs.

Confidentiality Mandates. Under GINA § 206, an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee that possesses genetic information about an employee or member must protect the confidentiality of that information.  Under its provisions, employers and other covered entities must:

  •  Treat the genetic information as a confidential medical record of the employee or member and maintain it on separate forms and in separate medical files in the same manner as required for other medical records required to be maintained as confidential by Americans With Disabilities Act § 102(d)(3)(B); and
  • Only disclose it in the narrow circumstances specifically allowed by GINA.

Anti-Retaliation.  GINA also prohibits retaliation or other discrimination against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice prohibited by GINA, for making a charge, testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under GINA. 

GINA’s Additional Group Health Plan Nondiscrimination & Privacy Rules Also Require Attention

In addition to taking appropriate steps to comply with the employment rules of Title II of GINA, employers and their group health plan fiduciaries and service providers also should ensure that the group health plan has been appropriately updated to comply with the group health plan nondiscrimination and privacy mandates of Title I of GINA. 

Effective for all group health plan years beginning on or after May 21, 2009, GINA’s new restrictions on the collection and use of genetic information by group health plans added under Title I of GINA are accomplished through the expansion of a series of already existing group health plan nondiscrimination and privacy rules.  GINA’s group health plan provisions amend and expand the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of information that falls within its broad definition of “genetic information” by  group health plans.  For individual health insurers, GINA’s restrictions take effect May 22, 2009.  The broad definition of the term “genetic information” in GINA will require group health plan sponsors and insurers to carefully review and update their group health plan documents, communications, policies and practices to comply with forthcoming implementing regulations to avoid liability under new GINA’s rules governing genetic information collection, use, protection and disclosure in a series of areas.  

In this respect, wellness and disease management programs are likely to require special scrutiny and attention. GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” raises potential challenges for a broad range of group health plan health assessment and other wellness and disease management programs which provide financial incentives or condition eligibility on the provision of family health histories or other information that could be construed as genetic information.  The implications of these GINA prohibitions are further complicated by recent changes in the disability nondiscrimination rules and guidance under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Title I of GINA generally prohibits group health plans from collecting genetic information for underwriting or eligibility purposes.  It also expands already existing federal rules prohibiting group health plans from discriminating among individuals for purposes of determining eligibility or setting premiums based on health status previously enacted as part of HIPAA.   These existing rules already prohibit group health plans and health insurance issuers from discriminating based on health related factors including genetic information for purposes of determining eligibility or premiums. GINA expands these existing nondiscrimination requirements to further regulate group health plan’s use and collection of genetic information.   Under GINA’s nondiscrimination rules, group health plans and health insurers may not:

  • Request, require or purchase genetic information for underwriting purposes or in advance of an individual’s enrollment;
  • Adjust premiums or contribution amounts of the group based on genetic information;
  • Request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except in limited situations specifically allowed by GINA;
  • Impose a preexisting condition exclusion based solely on genetic information, in the absence of a diagnosis of a condition;
  • Discriminate against individuals in eligibility and continued eligibility for benefits based on genetic information; or
  • Discriminate against individuals in premium or contribution rates under the plan or coverage based on genetic information, although such a plan or issuer may adjust premium rates for an employer based on the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual enrolled in the plan.

GINA also prohibits insurers providing individual health insurance from establishing rules for eligibility, adjusting premiums or contribution amounts for an individual, imposing preexisting condition exclusions based on, requesting or requiring individuals or family members to undergo genetic testing.

Of particular concern to many plan sponsors and fiduciaries are the potential implications of these new rules on existing wellness and disease management features group health plans. Of particular concern is how regulators will treat the collection of family medical history and certain other information as part of health risk assessments used in connection with these programs. Although official guidance is still pending, many are concerned that regulators will construe certain commonly used practices of requiring covered persons to provide family medical histories or other genetic information through health risk assessments (HRAs) to qualify for certain financial incentives as a prohibited underwriting practice under GINA.  Even where health risk assessments are not used, however, most group health plan sponsors should anticipate that GINA will require specific amendments to their plan documents, communications and processes.

Taking timely action to comply with these nondiscrimination and collection prohibitions is important.  Under amendments to ERISA made by GINA, group health plan noncompliance can create significant liability for both the plan and its sponsor.  Participants or beneficiaries will be able to sue noncompliant group health plans for damages and equitable relief.  If the participant or beneficiary can show an alleged violation would result in irreparable harm to the individual’s health, the participant or beneficiary may not have to exhaust certain otherwise applicable Department of Labor administrative remedies before bringing suit.  In addition to these private remedies, GINA also authorizes the imposition of penalties against employers and other sponsors of group health plans that violate applicable requirements of GINA of up to $500,000. The minimum penalties generally are set at the greater of $100 per day or a minimum penalty amount ranging from $2,500 for de minimus violations corrected before the health plan received notice of noncompliance to $15,000 in cases in which the violations are more than de minimus.  GINA also includes language allowing the Secretary of Labor to reduce otherwise applicable penalties for violations that could not have been identified through the exercise of due diligence or when the plan corrects the violation quickly.

GINA Amendments To Health Plan Privacy Rules Under HIPAA

In addition to its nondiscrimination rules, GINA also amends HIPAA to make clear that “genetic information” as defined by HIPAA is protected health information protected by HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Standards of HIPAA. This means that it will require that all genetic information be treated as protected health information subject to the Privacy and Security Standards applicable to group health plans covered by HIPAA. Although the statutory provisions that accomplish these changes are deceptively simple, compliance with these requirements likely will require group health plans and their business associates to amend existing privacy policies, notices and practices to appropriately restrict disclosures for underwriting, operations and certain other uses to withstand scrutiny under the GINA privacy rule amendments. 

When contemplating these changes, many plan sponsors and administrators also will want to consider and begin preparing to comply with other refinements to their existing privacy and security practices required in response to HIPAA privacy and security rule amendments enacted as part of the HITECH Act provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH Act”) provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  As GINA specifies that violations of its privacy rule restrictions trigger the same sanctions as other privacy rule violations, group health plans and their business associates also should give due consideration to these penalty exposures.  The HITECH Act amended and increased civil penalties for HIPAA privacy violations in many circumstances effective February 17, 2009.  

GINA’s fractured assignment of responsibility and authority to develop, implement and enforce regulatory guidance of its genetic information rules can create confusion for parties involved in compliance efforts. Because the group health plan requirements of Title I of GINA are refinements to the group health plan privacy and nondiscrimination rules previously enacted as part of HIPAA, GINA specifically assigned authority to construe and enforce its group health plan requirements to the agencies responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of those original rules:  (1) the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA); (2)  the Internal Revenue Services (IRS), and (3) the Department of Health & Human Services. 

These three agencies in early October published the interim final regulations construing the group health plan manatees of Title II of GINA, which are available for review here.  Group health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers should act quickly to review and update their group health plan documents, procedures and other materials to comply with these new mandates.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending these or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment laws, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, health and other employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions 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 here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. 

Comments Off on New GINA Genetic Information Based Employment Discrimination & Confidentiality Mandates Take Effect | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Immigration, Privacy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Bill Would Obligate Chemical Facilities To New Background Check, HR & Other Safety & Security Safeguards

November 16, 2009

“The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009” (“Act”) recently passed by the House of Representatives and awaiting Senate consideration, if enacted, will require U.S. businesses that own or operate “chemical facilities” to conduct security background checks on employees and certain other individuals and implement a detailed and expensive list of other new security processes.

By tightening the regulation of security practices at chemical facilities, Title XXI of the Act seeks to strengthen the security of chemical facilities against terroristic acts or other threats. Businesses manufacturing or handling chemicals or other substances that could cause them to be considered “chemical facilities” should carefully watch this legislation and, if appropriate, communicate any relevant input or concerns to members of the Senate promptly. 

The Act would require any facility (“chemical facility”) at which the owner or operator of the facility possesses or plans to possess at any relevant point in time a substance of concern or that that meets other risk-related criteria identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”) to implement processes and procedures that would comply with a broad range of risk-based standards established by the Secretary to ensure or enhance the security of a chemical facility against a chemical facility terrorist incident referred to in the Act as “chemical facility security performance standards” (the “Standards”). 

By their express terms and inherently as part of other requirements, the Standards would require that chemical facilities implement a host of new processes and procedures impacting on the selection, credentialing and management of employees and other service providers.  Among other things, for example, the Act would require chemical facilities to:

  • Administer a regularly updated identification system that checks the identification of chemical facility personnel and other persons seeking access to the chemical facility and that discourages abuse through established disciplinary measures;
  • Restrict access to facilities and secure site assets, systems, and technology;
  • Screen and control access to the facility and to restricted areas within the facility by screening or inspecting individuals and vehicles as they enter, measures to deter the unauthorized introduction of dangerous substances and devices that may facilitate a chemical facility terrorist incident or actions having serious negative consequences for the population surrounding the chemical facility;
  • Perform personnel surety for individuals with access to restricted areas or critical assets by conducting appropriate background checks and ensuring appropriate credentials for unescorted visitors and chemical facility personnel, including permanent and part-time personnel, temporary personnel, and contract personnel, including measures designed to verify and validate identity, to check criminal history, to verify and validate legal authorization to work and to identify people with terrorist ties;
  • Develop and require that employees and other member of the workforce comply with new processes, plans and procedures for preventing and responding to chemical facility terrorist incidents and other required procedures for deterring and responding to chemical facility terrorist incidents and threats of those incidents; and
  • Appoint new security officials responsible for overseeing and administering compliance under the Act.

Beyond these and other specific staffing requirements, the Act also would require chemical facilities implement, retrain and require that members of its workforce comply with a broad range of new procedures required under the Standards, including procedures to:

  • Deter chemical facility terrorist incidents through visible, professional, well-maintained security measures and systems, including security personnel, detection systems, barriers and barricades, and hardened or reduced value targets;
  • Deter theft or diversion of a substances of concern, insider sabotage, cyber sabotage, unauthorized onsite or remote access to critical process controls; and other critical product elements, data or systems; and
  • Comply with a host of other mandates.

As part of some of these required procedures, chemical facilities could expect to be required to adopt and train employees on their specific roles or responsibilities for deterring or responding to a chemical facility terrorist incident

Furthermore, the oversight and enforcement powers granted to the Secretary under the also would create a host of new employer retaliation and whistleblower exposures.  The Act would prohibit employer retaliation, implement new whistleblower safeguards and remedies and grant the Secretary the right to offer non-supervisory employees the opportunity to confidentially communicate information relevant to the employer’s compliance or non-compliance of the chemical facility with the Act or its implementing regulations;  It also would grant “an employee representative of each certified or recognized bargaining agent at the covered chemical facility, if any, or, if none, a non-supervisory employee … the opportunity to accompany the Secretary during a physical inspection of such covered chemical facility for the purpose of aiding in such inspection, if representatives of the owner or operator of the covered chemical facility will also be accompanying the Secretary on such inspection.”

These and other provisions could impose significant new burdens, costs and liabilities on businesses considered to be operating chemical facilities.  Since the precise list of businesses likely to fall within that definition would be decided by the Secretary, businesses in manufacturing, energy, pharmaceutical, or other industries that could fall within the scope of this definition should evaluate the potential implications and if appropriate, communicate any relevant input to Congress.

If you have questions about or need assistance with evaluation and responding to the provisions of the Act or any other employment, compensation, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation and employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.  Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

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 here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. 

Comments Off on Proposed Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Bill Would Obligate Chemical Facilities To New Background Check, HR & Other Safety & Security Safeguards | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Safety, Whistleblower | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Final Rule Updates OSHA Personal Protective Equipment Standards

September 9, 2009

The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today (September 9, 2009) published a final rule revising the personal  protective equipment (PPE) sections of its general industry, shipyard  employment, longshoring, and marine terminals standards regarding  requirements for eye- and face-protective devices, head protection, and  foot protection.

 The Final Rule published in today’s Federal Register:

  • Updates OSHA regulatory references to recognize more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards
  • Deletes references to obsolete prior editions of the national consensus standards
  • Amends provisions requiring safety shoes to comply with a specific American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard
  • Amends a provision that requires filter lenses and plates in eye- protective equipment to meet a test for transmission of radiant energy specified by another ANSI standard.

Instead of the amended standards, OSHA will require this safety equipment to comply with the applicable PPE design provisions.

The changes implemented under the Final Rule will become effective on October 9, 2009.  Interested persons can review a copy of the Final Regulation here.

If your business needs assistance with auditing, updating or defending its workplace health and safety, human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or responding to employment related or other charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; another Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney of your choice. 

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state workplace safety, equal employment opportunity and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising ad defending employers against federal and state employment discrimination and other labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations.  

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.  Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

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 here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on OSHA Final Rule Updates OSHA Personal Protective Equipment Standards | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, OSHA, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Register Now For HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update: Learn What You Must Do This Month To Comply With New Health Data Breach Regulations

September 2, 2009

September 10, 2009 – Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time       Participate In Person or Via Remote!

Health care providers, health plans, health clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) must comply with the new “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) by September 23, 2009. 

Catch up on what the Breach Rule means for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Thursday, September 10, 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time for a registration fee of $45.00. Registrants will have the option to participate via teleconference or in person at the offices of Curran Tomko Tarski LLP, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 2050, Dallas Texas 75201.  For information about registering for this program or other questions here,

The Breach Rule requires Covered Entities to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information. Just published August 24th, the Breach Regulation is part of a series of guidance that HHS is issuing to implement new and stricter personal health information privacy and data security requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  The briefing will cover:

  • Who must comply, health plans, employers, others?
  • What your organization must do
  • How to qualify protected health information as exempt from the breach regulations as “secure” protected health information
  • What is considered a breach of unsecured protected health information
  • What steps must a covered entity take if a breach of unsecured protected information happens
  • What liabilities do covered entities face for non-compliance
  • What new contractual requirements, policies and procedures Covered Entities and Business Associates will need
  • How the Breach Regulation, the Privacy Regulation, impending FTC red flag rules and state data breach and privacy rules interrelate
  • Other recent developments
  • Practical tips for assessing, planning, moving to and defending compliance
  • Participant questions
  • More

About The Presenter

The program will be presented by Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care & Employee Benefits Practice Leader and Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, publications and presentations on privacy and security of health and other sensitive information in health and managed care, employment, employee benefits, financial services, education and other contexts.  Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 20 years experience advising clients about health and other privacy and security matters.  A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer is the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010, as well as the author of “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of other highly regarded publications. She has continuously advises employers, health care providers, health insurers and administrators, health plan sponsors, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, schools, financial services providers, governments and others about privacy and data security, health care, insurance, human resources, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters.  Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.  For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here. 

We hope that this information is useful to you.  If you need assistance monitoring, evaluating or responding to these or other compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270-2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner of your choice.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information 

If you find this of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on our electronic Curran Tomko Tarski LLP publications 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. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials 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@cttlegal.net.

©2009 Solutions Law Press.   All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Register Now For HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update: Learn What You Must Do This Month To Comply With New Health Data Breach Regulations | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disease Management, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ADAAA Amendment Broader ADA “Disability” Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks

August 25, 2009

Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “in favor of broad coverage of individuals” do not apply to actions taken before effective date of the ADAAA, January 1, 2009, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. While the holding provides some comfort for employers in relation to pre-January 1, 2009 actions, employers need to take appropriate steps to mitigate disability claim risks for actions on or after the January 1, 2009 effective date of the ADAAA.

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 Lytes v. DC Water and Sewer Authority, D.C. Cir. No. 08-7002 (July 21, 2009), the D.C. Court of Appeals considered and rejected the retroactivity argument made by Lytes in his appeal from a trial court’s finding that he was not disabled under the ADA.  As the ADAAA took effect while his action was pending, Lytes sought to convince the Appeals Court to apply the ADAAA amended definition retroactively.  Contending that the ADAAA amendment merely clarified the existing law under the ADA, Lytes argued that the Court should apply the broader definition of disability when considering the legality of his termination from employment in 2004.

Rejecting Lytes’ retroactivity argument, the Court of Appeals ruled that the ADAAA amendment of the definition of “disability” under the ADA applies only on a prospective basis based on its finding that Congress had clearly provided that the ADAAA amendments only would apply to post-December 31, 2008 actions. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s finding that Lytes termination in 2004 did not violate the ADA as then effective as his lack of disabled status under the then-applicable definition of disability meant he was not entitled to accommodation.

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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments.

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).   

While the Lytes decision indicates that businesses will not be required to defend pre-2009 actions under the amended disability standards enacted by the ADAAA, businesses should prepare to meet new challenges in defending ADA claims arising from actions taken after December 31, 2008.  The ADAAA amendments 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.  

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. 

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 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 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, Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 214.270.2402.

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.

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.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.   All rights reserved. 

Comments Off on ADAAA Amendment Broader ADA “Disability” Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23

August 24, 2009

Employer and other health plans, health care providers, health clearinghouses and their business associates must start complying with new federal data breach notification rules on September 23, 2009.   

The new “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) published here  in today’s Federal Register requires health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) covered under the personal health information privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information.The Breach Regulation is part of a series of guidance that HHS is issuing to implement new and stricter personal health information privacy and data security requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). 

You are invited to catch up on what these new rules mean for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Wednesday, September 9 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time.  

HITECH Act Data Breach and Unsecured PHI Rules 

Published in the August 24, 2009 Federal Register, the new Breach Regulation implements the HITECH Act requirement that Covered Entities and their business associates notify affected individuals, the Secretary of HHS, and in some cases, the media, when a breach of “unsecured protected health information” happens and the form, manner, and timing of that notification. Covered Entities must begin complying with the new Breach Regulation on September 23, 2009.

Part of a series of new HHS rules implementing recent changes to HIPAA enacted under the HITECH Act to strengthen existing federally mandates requiring Covered Entities to safeguard protected health information, the Breach Regulation will obligate Covered Entities and business associates to provide certain notifications following a breach of “protected health information” that not secured at the time of the breach through the use of a technology or methodology meeting minimum standards issued by HHS pursuant to other provisions of the HITECH Act.

Under the HITECH Act, the breach notification obligations contained in the Breach Notification only apply to a breach of “unsecured protected health information.” The Breach Regulation exempts breaches of protected health information that qualify as “secured” under separately issued HHS and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) standards for encryption and destruction of protected health information from its breach notification requirements.  

 For purposes of the HITECH Act, electronic protected health information is considered “unsecured” unless the Covered Entity has satisfied certain minimum standards for the protection of that data established pursuant to the HITECH Act.  Earlier this year, HHS and the FTC issued interim rules defining the minimum encryption and destruction technologies and methodologies that Covered Entities must use to render protected health information unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals for purposes of determining when protected health information is “unsecured” for purposes of the HITECH Act.  Concurrent with its publication of the Breach Regulation, HHS also released guidance updating and clarifying this previously issued guidance. 

Read the Breach Regulation here .  To review the HITECH Act Breach Notification Guidance and Request for Information, see here .

Register For September 9, 2009  “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update”

Interested persons are invited to register here now  to learn what these new rules mean for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time. For a registration fee of $45.00, registrants will have the option to participate via teleconference or in person at the offices of Curran Tomko Tarski LLP, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 2050, Dallas Texas 75201.  For questions or other information about this program, e-mail here.

Conducted by Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, the briefing will cover: 

  • Who must comply
  • What your organization must do
  • How to qualify protected health information as exempt from the breach regulations as “secure” protected health information
  • What is considered a breach of unsecured protected health information
  • What steps must a covered entity take if a breach of unsecured protected information happens
  • What liabilities do covered entities face for non-compliance
  • What new contractual requirements, policies and procedures Covered Entities and Business Associates will need
  • How the Breach Regulation, the Privacy Regulation, impending FTC red flag rules and state data breach and privacy rules interrelate
  •  Other recent developments
  • Practical tips for assessing, planning, moving to and defending compliance
  • Participant questions
  • More

About The Presenter

The program will be presented by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, publications and presentations on privacy and security of health and other sensitive information in health and managed care, employment, employee benefits, financial services, education and other contexts. 

 Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and currently the Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Section and a Council Representative of the ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer has more than 20 years experience advising clients about health and other privacy and security matters.  A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer is the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010, as well as the author of “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of other highly regarded publications. She has continuously advises employers, health care providers, health insurers and administrators, health plan sponsors, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, schools, financial services providers, governments and others about privacy and data security, health care, insurance, human resources, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters.  Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.  For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.  

We hope that this information is useful to you.  If you need assistance monitoring, evaluating or responding to these or other compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270-2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner of your choice.

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 on our electronic Curran Tomko Tarski LLP publications 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. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials 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@cttlegal.com.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.   All rights reserved. 

Comments Off on Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23 | ARRA, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Preemption, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans Must Comply with New HHS Interim Final Data Breach Rules Beginning September 24; Register to Participate In September 10th Briefing on New Rules In Person or Via Telephone

August 20, 2009

Employers and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and service providers need to move quickly to prepare to comply with  “breach notification” regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) yesterday (August 19, 2009).  The new data breach regulations will require health plans, as well as  health care providers, business associates and other covered entities (Covered Entities) under the personal health information privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability  (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information. Scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009, the new breach notification regulations are part of a series of new rules that implement new electronic personal health information data security and data breach notification requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  Covered entities must begin complying with the new rules no later than September 24, 2009.

Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP Health Practice leader Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will conduct a briefing on these new protected health information data security and data breach rules on Thursday, September 10, 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time. For a registration fee of $45.00, registrants will have the option to participate via teleconference or in person at the offices of Curran Tomko Tarski LLP, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 2050, Dallas Texas 75201.  For more information, e-mail here.

 HITECH Act Data Breach and Unsecured PHI Rules

The new data breach notification rules are part of a series of recent HIPAA enacted under the HITECH Act to strengthen the federal rules requiring HIPAA covered entities to safeguard electronic and certain other protected health information. Enhanced data security and data breach rules added as part of these HITECH Act amendments obligate  covered entities and business associates to provide certain notifications following a breach of “unsecured”  “protected health information” within the meaning of HIPAA, as amended.  “Unsecured protected health information” is defined as protected health information that is not secured through the use of a technology or methodology specified by the HHS Secretary.

The new data breach regulations implement the HITECH Act requirement that Covered Entities and their business associates notify affected individuals, the Secretary of HHS, and in some cases, the media, of a breach and the form, manner, and timing of that notification.  For purposes of the HITECH Act, electronic protected health information is considered “unsecured” unless the covered entity has satisfied certain minimum standards for the protection of that data established pursuant to the HITECH Act.  HHS and the Federal Trade Commission previously issued certain initial guidance concerning the HITECH Act standards for determining when electronic personal health information qualifies as secure.  To help further define when electronic health information is treated as “unsecured” and therefore subject to the breach notification requirements, the data breach rules also update and clarify the previously issued existing HHS guidance specifying encryption and destruction as the technologies and methodologies that render protected health information unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals published earlier this year by HHS to for purposes of determining when protected health information will be considered “unsecured” for purposes of the HITECH Act data breach rules.  Entities subject to the HHS and FTC regulations that secure health information as specified by the guidance through encryption or destruction are relieved from having to notify in the event of a breach of such information.  

The HHS interim final regulations are effective September 24, 2009, which is the date 30 days after the date they will be published on the Federal Register and include a 60-day public comment period. To review the interim final data breach regulations, see here.  To review the HITECH Act Breach Notification Guidance and Request for Information, see here.

For More Information

The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Labor and Employment and Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, managed care providers and other health and insurance industry clients about HIPAA and other privacy and data security matters, as well as a diverse range of health care, employment, and emplyee benefit policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns. 

Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Real Property, Trusts & Estates Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, past chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Martindale Hubble AV-rated and recognized in International Who’s Who of Professionals, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health care providers, health care payers and administrators, employers, governments and others about health care, insurance, human resources, privacy and data security, technology, and other legal and operational concerns.  A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer also writes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters.  She currently serves as the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010.  Examples of her other works include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of others.  Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service Privacy Report, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a various other national and local publications.  For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.  

We hope that this information is useful to you.  If you need assistance monitoring, evaluating or responding to these or other proposed health care or other regulatory reforms or with other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270-2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner.

We also encourage you and others to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin, registering to receive these updates here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you.   If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register to receive this Solutions Law Press Health Care Update here and be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials 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.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  All rights reserved. 

Comments Off on Health Plans Must Comply with New HHS Interim Final Data Breach Rules Beginning September 24; Register to Participate In September 10th Briefing on New Rules In Person or Via Telephone | Corporate Compliance, ERISA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision

July 22, 2009

Businesses that fire or discipline employees increasingly face retaliation claims by disgruntled workers claiming the protection of nondiscrimination and other federal and state whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 06-1595, highlights the need for employers to exercise constant vigilance to potential retaliation claims and the need to act to avoid retaliating, or appearing to retaliate against employees when conducting internal investigations, terminations, promotions or other workforce management activities. While the decision specifically addressed retaliation under Title VII, the use of similar language in other federal laws regulating business conducting – including those covered by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines – makes it likely that the decision has much broader implications.

Technically, the Crawford decision specifically applied to retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) in the context of a sexual harassment complaint investigation.  However, business should anticipate that creative plaintiffs and their legal counsel soon will ask courts to apply the Crawford holding beyond sexual harassment to reach to claims brought by employees claiming injury in retaliation for statements made in relation to investigation of other federal statutes prohibiting retaliation.  A host of federal and state employment and other laws prohibit businesses from retaliating against employees for reporting possible prohibited conduct or seeking to exercise certain rights legally protected rights.  Because many of these statutes use the same or similar language to the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VI, share the same or similar purpose, or both,  businesses should anticipate that certain courts will be inclined to view the Crawford  rationale, if not its holding, as applicable to retaliation claims under certain of these other federal statutory prohibitions.  Accordingly, pending further guidance, most businesses interested in minimizing exposures to retaliation claims will want to design and administer investigations to avoid the impression of illegal retaliation against witnesses in sexual harassment investigations as other investigations where similar anti-retaliation provisions may apply.  Accordingly, most U.S. businesses will treat Crawford as having potential implications both in relation to sexual harassment and other investigations under Title VII as well as investigations conducted other federal laws containing similar anti-retaliation provisions.

The Crawford Decision

In its February 2, 2009 unanimous Crawford decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII protect employees against retaliation for giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior when responding to questions asked during the employer’s investigation of a sexual harassment discrimination, even if the employee took no further overt action to complain about, seek to remedy or stop the misconduct.

Vicky Crawford sued the employer under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, which prohibits an employer from terminating a worker because she “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” under Title VII.   The Crawford case arose from statements Ms. Crawford made in response questions addressed to her as part of her employer’s investigation of sexual harassment rumors.  Asked if she’d witnessed any inappropriate behavior by a supervisor, Ms. Crawford answered told the employer about a series of harassing acts by the supervisor toward herself.  Besides reporting her experience in reply to employer questions during the investigation, however, Ms. Crawford did not file a sexual harassment complaint or otherwise report her alleged sexual harassment experience to the employer.  Following the interview, the employer did not discipline the supervisor.  However, the employer subsequently fired Ms. Crawford and two other employees who also reported being harassed by the supervisor.  As part of its defense, the employer argued that Ms. Crawford’s report during the course of the investigation did not qualify as “opposition” prohibited under Title VII.  

The question before the Supreme Court was whether simply disclosing an act of harassment in answer to a question constitutes “oppos[ing]” an unlawful practice, or whether – as the court of appeals had held – opposition within the meaning of the provisions requires something more assertive.

 Applying the ordinary meaning of “oppose,” the Supreme Court unanimously found that “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . . employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.”  Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that protected opposition under Title VII includes giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior, even if the employee takes no further action on her own to seek to stop or remedy the conduct.

Explaining its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated that a contrary rule that would require a worker to engage in “active, consistent” behavior in order to engage in protected opposition would be inconsistent with common usage.  For example, the Court explained, one can “oppose capital punishment” without doing anything active to end it.  The Supreme Court rejected as “freakish” an interpretation of “opposition” that would protect an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.”

While concurring in the unanimous opinion, Justices Alito and Thomas cautioned against reading that opinion too broadly. Their opinion clarifies that in their view, covered opposition must be “active and purposive” to qualify as protected.  Consequently, they warned that the Court’s opinion should not be read to suggest that Title VII protects merely opposing a practice in principle (like opposing capital punishment) without taking any action at all to express that opposition.

 

Other Broader Potential Implications & Lessons From Crawford

Although the report by Ms. Crawford involved her notification to the employer that she too may have been sexually harassed, the implications of the Crawford decision reach more broadly. 

Crawford specifically construed the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), which makes it unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any . . . employe[e]” who (1) “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter”, or (2) “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter”.  This provision of Title VII and other equal employment opportunity laws, as well as the Family & Medical Leave Act and various other employment laws commonly contain similar prohibitions against an employer or business discriminating against protected persons for opposing unlawful practices or making charges, testifying, assisting or participating in investigation of practices prohibited under the applicable employment law.  Consequently, there exists a significant probability that courts will apply the Crawford holding to retaliation claims brought by employees for testimony or other participation in investigation in other equal employment opportunity charges under Title VII and other employment laws.

It also is possible that employees ask the courts to extend the holding of Crawford to retaliation claims brought by employees claiming to have been retaliated against for participating in the investigation of or expressing opposition to illegal practices under a wide range of other statutes.  Beyond the employment context, many other federal laws incorporate similar prohibits against employer discrimination against employees for opposing practices made unlawful under their provisions or providing testimony or participating in investigations of potential violations of their provisions. For example,  in connection with its criminal prohibition of major fraud against the United States, paragraph (h) of 18 U.S.C § 1031 creates a right for individuals discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others “in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution)” to recover for job and seniority reinstatement, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest, litigation costs and reasonable attorneys fees and other special damages.

Given these similarities, pending further guidance, U.S. businesses generally will want to exercise sensitivity when dealing with employees who express opposition, testify or otherwise participate in investigations or prosecutions of potential violations under Title VII and other federal laws that contain the same or similar anti-retaliation provisions. 

Read from this perspective, the Crawford decision highlights the advisability for businesses not to overlook the potential significance of the statements and conduct by employees involved in any internal investigation, performance, or other activity that might later form the basis of a retaliation complaint.  

Businesses generally should listen carefully when conducting investigations, employee counseling and discipline meetings, and exit interviews with an eye out for the need to investigate potential legal violations, defend against retaliation charges, or both.

Although businesses should continue to require employees to report known or suspected discrimination or other prohibited conduct in accordance with a specified formal procedure, the Crawford decision reminds businesses not to overestimate the protection afforded by the establishment of formal reporting procedures. 

Crawford also highlights the need for businesses to be careful to investigate and properly respond to new charges of discrimination or other potential legal or policy violations that may be uncovered in the course of an investigation, disciplinary meeting or exist interview.   

Additionally, businesses also should seek to evaluate the potential implications of their dealings with employees who previously have made charges, participated in investigations, or claimed other protected rights such as taking a protected leave or the like. 

Likewise, as in the defense of other employment claims, Crawford also reflects the value and importance of businesses appropriately documenting performance concerns relating to a specific employee and legitimate business challenges motivating employment actions as they arise, in the event that it subsequently becomes necessary to present evidence of a valid performance or business justification to defend against allegations by an employee claiming to have been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII or other similar federal anti-retaliation laws.

Finally, businesses should keep in mind the potential value of strong documentation.  When seeking to defend against claims of discrimination or retaliation, the strength of the employer’s documentation often can play a significant role in the cost and ease of defense of the claim or charge.  Businesses should work to prepare and retain documentation not only of allegations, investigations and determinations regarding both employee performance and discipline, as well as the handling of alleged violations of equal employment opportunity or other laws.  Documentation should be prepared and retained on a systematic basis with an eye to strengthening the organization’s ability to prevent and defend against charges that the organization violated the core obligations under the applicable law as well as to defend employment decisions involving employees who may be in a position to assert retaliation claims.

The importance of good investigation and documentation practices takes on particular importance in the current tough economic environment.  While retaliation claims have been rising for many years, the recent economic downturn is fueling an increase in the number of employees seeking to claim protection in the tightening economy based on retaliation or other employment law protections.  Workforce dissention and changes in personnel also can complicate further the ability to defend these claims just as the Department of Labor and other federal regulators are turning up the enforcement heat.  As a result, appropriate investigation and documentation procedures are particularly important in the current environment.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your business needs assistance auditing, updating or defending its human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or responding to employment related or other charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising ad defending employers against federal and state employment discrimination and other labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations.  

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years.  

More Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions 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.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Businesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, family leave, Human Resources, I-9, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, medical leave, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP To Apply Special Procedures, Heightened Scrutiny To Equal Employment Practices of Government Contractors, Subcontractors On ARRA Funded Projects

July 20, 2009

U.S. businesses engaged to provide services on projects funded from the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) signed into law by President Barack Obama in February, 2009 will face heightened equal employment opportunity scrutiny and be subject to special procedures by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) according to “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”). 

Businesses providing services or supplies on ARRA funded projects directly or as subcontractors be considered government contractors, required to comply with the equal employment opportunity requirements of  Executive Order 11246, as amended (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, 38 U.S.C. 4212 (VEVRAA).   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. 

A review of the ARRA Procedures makes clear that ARRA funded contractors can expect to face much more rigorous scrutiny during their compliance audits that normally applies in non-ARRA contract compliance reviews.

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 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:

  • 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: Presently, 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.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising ad defending employers against federal and state employment discrimination and other labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years.  If your business needs assistance auditing or updating its wage and hour or other human resources compliance practices, or responding to wage and hour or other employment related charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions 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.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on OFCCP To Apply Special Procedures, Heightened Scrutiny To Equal Employment Practices of Government Contractors, Subcontractors On ARRA Funded Projects | Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Government Contractors, Human Resources, OFCCP, Public Policy, Stimulus Bill | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

With September 8 Deadline For Government Contractors To Use E-Verify, USCIS Invites Comments On E-Verify Program Designated Agent Process

June 24, 2009

With the September 8, 2009 deadline for federal government contractors to begin using E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of new employees, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) now is inviting comments or suggestions for improving the E-Verify Program Designated Agent Process.

August 24, 2009 is the deadline for employers and other interested parties to submit to USCIS comments or suggestions for improving the E-Verify Program Designated Agent Process under which a participating employer may choose to outsource submission of employment eligibility verification queries for newly hired employees to a Designated Agent. USCIS invited the comments in a Request For Public Comment On E-Verify Program Designated Agent Process published in the June 23, 2009 Federal Register. 

Federal government contractors and subcontractors will be required to begin using the E-Verify system to verify the eligibility of employees to work in the United States on September 8. The Obama Administration recently delayed implementation of the final rule requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of employees to work in the U.S. The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (collectively known as the Federal Acquisitions Regulatory Councils) published an amendment in the Federal Register on June 5, 2009, postponing the applicability of the final rule until Sept. 8, 2009. This new federal government contractor mandate to use E-Verify is fueling heightened interest and concern by these and other businesses in the existence and particulars of the E-Verify program.

 The E-Verify Program is a free employment eligibility confirmation system operated jointly by USCIS and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Under impending regulations, government contractors Recently re-extended by Congress, it is designed to determine the employment eligibility of new hires. The E-Verify Program allows participating employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of newly hired employees to help maintain a stable and legal workforce.

An E-Verify Designated Agent is a liaison between E-Verify and employers who choose to outsource submission of employment eligibility verification queries for newly hired employees. E-Verify Designated Agents conduct the verification process for other employers or clients. An E-Verify Designated Agent must register online and sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SSA and DHS. Once the MOU is approved, the E-Verify Designated Agent can then begin registering employers and clients who have designated it to perform their verification services.

Since the program design for Designated Agents has changed very little over the past several years, USCIS plans to review the Designated Agent process to assess how Designated Agents provide this service to their clients. According to the Notice, the purpose of this notice is to request that Designated Agents, their clients, or others with Designated Agent experience provide their comments or suggestions for improving the Designated Agent process.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers and others to respond to proposed legislation and regulations and addressing other leave and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls concerns. If your organization needs assistance with assessing or responding to H.R. 2450 or assistance with leave and absence management or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit concerns or regulations, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys at 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions here. Also stay abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controls distributions. 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. 

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on With September 8 Deadline For Government Contractors To Use E-Verify, USCIS Invites Comments On E-Verify Program Designated Agent Process | Corporate Compliance, E-Verify, Employers, Government Contractors, Human Resources, I-9 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

September 8, 2009 New Deadline For Government Contractors, Subcontractors Deadline To Use E-Verify

June 9, 2009

September 8 now is the deadline for federal government contractors and subcontractors to begin using U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) E-Verify system to verify the eligibility of employees to work in the United States. 

The Obama Administration recently delayed implementation of the final rule requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of employees to work in the U.S. The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (collectively known as the Federal Acquisitions Regulatory Councils) published an amendment in the Federal Register on June 5, 2009, postponing the applicability of the final rule until Sept. 8, 2009. 

As originally published November 14, 2008, the final rule requiring that federal government contractors and subcontractors agree to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees went into effect January 19, 2009.  However, the compliance deadline was delayed in January and again in April, 2009 by the Obama Administration.  Prior to the delay granted this month, the deadline to begin using U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) E-Verify system was delayed to June 30, 2009.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers and others to respond to proposed legislation and regulations and addressing other leave and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls concerns. If your organization needs assistance with assessing or responding to H.R. 2450 or assistance with leave and absence management or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit concerns or regulations, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys at 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions here. Also stay abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controls distributions. 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. 

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on September 8, 2009 New Deadline For Government Contractors, Subcontractors Deadline To Use E-Verify | Corporate Compliance, E-Verify, Employee Benefits, Employment Agreement, Government Contractors, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

102 House Members Back New Bill To Mandate Employers Give 56 Hours Paid Leave Per Year

June 9, 2009

Virtually all employers will be require to allow employees provide up to 56 hours of paid if Congress passes the “Healthy Families Act” (H.R. 2460) introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro with the support of 101 co-sponsors on May 18, 2009.  Given the significant number of co-sponsors already on record as supporting the legislation, employers concerned about the proposed legislation need to act quickly to communicate their concerns to Congress.

If enacted as currently introduced, H.R. 2460 both would significantly expand the number of employers required by federal law to provide sick leave and overlay a mandate to provide paid sick leave in addition to the existing unpaid leave mandates currently applicable under the Family and Medical Leave Act to employers of more than 50 employees.

As proposed, H.R. 2460 would require all employers of 15 or more employees:

  • To accrue at least 1 hour of paid sick time (up to a maximum of 56 hours per calendar year) for every 30 hours worked by each employee from beginning with the first day of employment of the employee.  Exempt employees generally would be assumed to work 40 hours in each workweek for purposes of calculating accrued sick leave;
  • Guarantee employees the right to begin using accrued paid sick time for one of the purposes qualifying for sick leave under H.R. 2460 beginning with the 60th calendar day following commencement of the employee’s employment and thereafter as he accrues additional paid sick time;
  • To allow employees to carry over earned but unused paid sick time from  one calendar year to the next except under certain limited conditions; and
  • To reinstate accrued but unused leave for any employee rehired within 12 months after separating from employment and continue to recognize additional paid sick time accruals beginning with the recommencement of employment with the employer.

The purposes that H.R. 2460 would require employers to allow employees to use accrued sick leave also would be broader than those currently protected under the medical leave provisions of the FMLA.  Under H.R. 2460, employees could use sick leave for any of the following absences:

  • An absence resulting from a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition of the employee;
  • An absence resulting from obtaining professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventive medical care, for the employee
  • In absence for the purpose of caring for a child, a parent, a spouse, or any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship (a “family member”), who has any of the conditions or needs for diagnosis or care of a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition or in the case of someone who is not a child, is otherwise in need of care; and
  • An absence resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the time is to seek medical attention for the employee or a family member to recover from physical or psychological injury or disability caused by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking or obtain or assist a family member in obtaining services from a victim services organization, psychological or other counseling; to seek relocation; or to take legal action, including preparing for or participating in any civil or criminal legal proceeding related to or resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

In addition, H.R. 2460 also would require covered employers:

  • To notify employees about their sick leave rights as dictated by H.R. 2460; and
  • Not to discharge or discriminating against (including retaliating against) any individual, including a job applicant, for exercising, or attempting to exercise, any right provided or for opposing any practice made unlawful by H.R. 2460;
  • Not to use the taking of paid sick time under H.R. 2460 as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action;  
  • Not to count the paid sick time under a no-fault attendance policy or any other absence control policy;
  • Not otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under H.R. 2460; and
  • Not to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against (including retaliating against) any individual, including a job applicant, because such individual has filed an action, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to H.R. 2450; has given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under H.R. 2450; or has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under H.R. 2450.

Even before the current economic downturn, many employers already viewed the unpaid leave mandates imposed by the FMLA and other laws as burdensome.  The added costs and complexities of providing more paid time off under another federally imposed mandate couldn’t come at a worse time for many employers.  Given the number of co-sponsors, many commentators view the proposed mandates in H.R. 2450 as likely to pass the House unless businesses act quickly to educate members of Congress about their concerns.

 Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers and others to respond to proposed legislation and regulations and addressing other leave and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls concerns. If your organization needs assistance with assessing or responding to H.R. 2450 or assistance with leave and absence management or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit concerns or regulations, 

If you need help responding to these proposals or with other questions relating to compliance or risk management under other federal or state employment, employee benefits, compensation, or internal controls laws or regulations, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402 or via e-mail here.   Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” works with businesses, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, internal controls and compensation matters.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here,   For more information and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website.

 

You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources here.  If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here.  If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.

 ©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on 102 House Members Back New Bill To Mandate Employers Give 56 Hours Paid Leave Per Year | Absenteeism, ADA, Corporate Compliance, Employers, family leave, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, medical leave | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New GINA Health Plan Nondiscrimination Rules Effective For Plan Years Beginning On or After Today

May 21, 2009

New restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of genetic information applicable to employer and union-sponsored group health plans enacted under Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-233 (GINA) for group health plan years that begin on or after today (May 21, 2009). For non-calendar year plans with plan years beginning between June 1 and December 1, the effective date occurs on first day of their 2009 plan year. For example, the effective date will be June 1, 2009 for a plan with a 2009 plan year that begins June 1.  For calendar year plans, the compliance deadline is January 1, 2010.   All employer-sponsored group health plans are required to comply with GINA.  There are no small group exceptions.

GINA In A Nutshell

GINA amended federal law to include specific prohibitions against certain discrimination based on genetic information by group health plans and health insurers (Title I) and to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information by employers of 15 or more employees (Title II).

Effective for all group health plan years beginning on or after May 21, 2009, GINA’s new restrictions on the collection and use of genetic information by group health plans added under Title I of GINA are accomplished through the expansion of a series of already existing group health plan nondiscrimination and privacy rules.  GINA’s group health plan provisions amend and expand the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of information that falls within its broad definition of “genetic information” by  group health plans.  For individual health insurers, GINA’s restrictions take effect May 22, 2009.  The broad definition of the term “genetic information” in GINA will require group health plan sponsors and insurers to carefully review and update their group health plan documents, communications, policies and practices to comply with forthcoming implementing regulations to avoid liability under new GINA’s rules governing genetic information collection, use, protection and disclosure in a series of areas. 

Meanwhile, employers, unions and others face their own new prohibitions against genetic information based employment discrimination added by Title II of GINA, which take effect November 21, 2009. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published proposed regulations interpreting Title II of GINA in March, 2009.

Broad Definition of “Genetic Information”

The broad range of information included within GINA’s broad definition of “genetic information” means its new restrictions have a sweeping reach when applied to most group health plans.  GINA defines “genetic information to include with respect to any individual, information about:

  • Such individual’s genetic tests;
  • The genetic tests of family members of such individual; and
  • The manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.

GINA also specifies that any reference to genetic information concerning an individual or family member includes genetic information of a fetus carried by a pregnant woman and an embryo legally held by an individual or family member utilizing an assisted reproductive technology.

Pending issuance of regulatory guidance, GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” raises potential challenges for a broad range of group health plan health assessment and other wellness and disease management programs which provide financial incentives or condition eligibility on the provision of family health histories or other information that could be construed as genetic information. 

Group Health Plan Genetic Testing Collection and Nondiscrimination Rules

Under GINA’s nondiscrimination rules, group health plans and health insurers may not:

  • Request, require or purchase genetic information for underwriting purposes or in advance of an individual’s enrollment;
  • Adjust premiums or contribution amounts of the group based on genetic information;
  • Request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except in limited situations specifically allowed by GINA;
  • Impose a preexisting condition exclusion based solely on genetic information, in the absence of a diagnosis of a condition;
  • Discriminate against individuals in eligibility and continued eligibility for benefits based on genetic information; or
  • Discriminate against individuals in premium or contribution rates under the plan or coverage based on genetic information, although such a plan or issuer may adjust premium rates for an employer based on the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual enrolled in the plan.

GINA also prohibits insurers providing individual health insurance from establishing rules for eligibility, adjusting premiums or contribution amounts for an individual, imposing preexisting condition exclusions based on, requesting or requiring individuals or family members to undergo genetic testing.

Of particular concern to many plan sponsors and fiduciaries are the potential implications of these new rules on existing wellness and disease management features group health plans. Of particular concern is how regulators will treat the collection of family medical history and certain other information as part of health risk assessments used in connection with these programs. Although official guidance is still pending, many are concerned that regulators will construe certain commonly used practices of requiring covered persons to provide family medical histories or other genetic information through health risk assessments (HRAs) to qualify for certain financial incentives as a prohibited underwriting practice under GINA.  Even where health risk assessments are not used, however, most group health plan sponsors should anticipate that GINA will require specific amendments to their plan documents, communications and processes.

Taking timely action to comply with these nondiscrimination and collection prohibitions is important.  Under amendments to ERISA made by GINA, group health plan noncompliance can create significant liability for both the plan and its sponsor.  Participants or beneficiaries will be able to sue noncompliant group health plans for damages and equitable relief.  If the participant or beneficiary can show an alleged violation would result in irreparable harm to the individual’s health, the participant or beneficiary may not have to exhaust certain otherwise applicable Department of Labor administrative remedies before bringing suit.  In addition to these private remedies, GINA also authorizes the imposition of penalties against employers and other sponsors of group health plans that violate applicable requirements of GINA of up to $500,000. The minimum penalties generally are set at the greater of $100 per day or a minimum penalty amount ranging from $2,500 for de minimus violations corrected before the health plan received notice of noncompliance to $15,000 in cases in which the violations are more than de minimus.  GINA also includes language allowing the Secretary of Labor to reduce otherwise applicable penalties for violations that could not have been identified through the exercise of due diligence or when the plan corrects the violation quickly.

GINA Amendments To Health Plan Privacy Rules Under HIPAA

In addition to its nondiscrimination rules, GINA also amends HIPAA to make clear that “genetic information” as defined by HIPAA is protected health information protected by HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Standards of HIPAA. This means that it will require that all genetic information be treated as protected health information subject to the Privacy and Security Standards applicable to group health plans covered by HIPAA. Although the statutory provisions that accomplish these changes are deceptively simple, compliance with these requirements likely will require group health plans and their business associates to amend existing privacy policies, notices and practices to appropriately restrict disclosures for underwriting, operations and certain other uses to withstand scrutiny under the GINA privacy rule amendments. 

The HITECH Act amended and increased civil penalties for HIPAA privacy violations in many circumstances effective February 17, 2009.   

Regulatory Guidance Status

 As the the deadline for compliance for post May 20, 2009 plan years is rapidly approaching, however, many group health plans and their sponsors will need forward with their compliance arrangements in the absence of regulatory guidance interpreting these requirements. 

GINA’s fractured assignment of responsibility and authority to develop, implement and enforce regulatory guidance of its genetic information rules can create confusion for parties involved in compliance efforts. Because the group health plan requirements of Title I of GINA are refinements to the group health plan privacy and nondiscrimination rules previously enacted as part of HIPAA, GINA specifically assigned authority to construe and enforce its group health plan requirements to the agencies responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of those original rules:

  • The Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA);
  • The Internal Revenue Services (IRS), and
  • The Department of Health & Human Services. 

While these three agencies previously published a request for public comments about issues under Title I’s provisions, see http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-24194.pdf, none of these three agencies as of May 20, 2009 has published interim or other regulations interpreting the GINA provisions within their scope of responsibility since the formal comments period ended December 9, 2009.  Although the EBSA Spring 2009 regulatory agenda reflected it intended to publish interim regulations by today and agency officials continue to indicate they intend to publish guidance “soon,” no guidance had been published as of May 20, 2009.

Even if the agencies issue guidance by the end of May plan sponsors and administrators of group health plans with new plan years beginning in the next 60 to 90 days are expressing concern that they will have inadequate time to complete compliance arrangements.  As a result, in addition to guidance about GINA’s requirements generally, some are hopeful that the guidance with include transition rules or other relief to allow more time to comply with the regulations when finally issued.  Regulators as of May 20, 2009 had not given any indication that they plan or perceive that they are authorized to provide such relief.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the http://www.cttlegal.com.

Other Information & Resources

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at e-mail, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your Currant contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com.  If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.

 ©Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on New GINA Health Plan Nondiscrimination Rules Effective For Plan Years Beginning On or After Today | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Some Sexual Harassment Policy Violations Carry Criminal Risks For Employers

May 12, 2009

The recent sentencing of a West Texas man on a child pornography conviction serves as an important reminder to employers of the need to consider the potential criminal exposures and responsibilities of their organization and its management under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when an investigation of sexual harassment policy violations uncovers evidence that an employee may have engaged in the transmission or receipt of pornography on company computers or systems.

On May 8, 2009, U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings sentenced Rory Dale Worthan, of Big Spring, Texas, to 78 months in prison followed by a 30-year term of supervised release illegal possession of child pornography.  Worthan pled guilty in January to one count of possession of child pornography. He admitted that on February 8, 2007, he had an image of child pornography on his computer’s hard drive that he had downloaded from the Internet.  His conviction was part of a series of convictions resulting from a West Texas child pornography sting operation.

Although Worthan’s conviction related to his use of his personal computer system, statistics show that workplace access of child and other pornography during company hours is common.  In fact, some studies report that 70 percent of all Web traffic to Internet pornography sites occurs between the traditional work hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.  See  “Workplace Web Use: Give ‘em an inch …,” Douglas Schweitzer, SearchSecurity.com (Sept. 27, 2004). 

While most employers already are aware of the substantial employment discrimination and sexual harassment liability exposures that employee access, possession and transmission of pornography and other sexually explicit or suggestive content can create under Title VII and other federal and state employment discrimination laws, many are unaware that the use by employees of their computers to access, store, transmit or engage in other activities involving child pornography or other sexually explicit materials also may have criminal implications for their organization under certain circumstances.

As part of broader prohibitions against activities involving the sexual exploitation of minors, for instance under the U.S. Criminal Code, Title XVIII makes the creation, receipt, transmission possession, retention, transmission and certain other activities involving child pornography or certain other visual depictions involving the use or depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct under certain circumstances a felony under federal law. 

Under the organizational provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a business that employs an employee or agent who engages in these activities during working hours or using company systems or equipment may face vicarious liability for the wrongful criminal actions by its employee in violation of these or other federal laws where the criminal action engaged in by the employee is a Felony or Class A misdemeanor.  Under such circumstances, the liability exposure of the employer generally depends upon its ability to demonstrate that it had suitable policies and procedures in place to prohibit and prevent the activity, whether it timely investigated and took appropriate measures to report the violation to federal law enforcement officials and cooperate with them in their investigation and prosecution of the offending employee and other factors.

In addition to these criminal liability risks, employers also may face exposure to civil judgments in lawsuits brought by families of children victimized by employees using employer computers or operating systems.  In Doe v. XYC Corp., 887 A.2d 1156 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005), for example, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that an employer could be held liable in a negligence action to a victim of child pornography based on the actions of one of its employees. In Doe, the wife of an employee who used his workstation computer at work to view and circulate nude photographs of his 10-year old stepdaughter sued the employer for negligence claim.  The mother claimed the employer acted negligently by failing to detect and stop her husband from using his work computer to interact with child pornography Web sites, thereby allowing him to “continue clandestinely photographing and molesting” his 10-year-old stepdaughter.

For this reason, employers who uncover evidence that an employee or agent during working hours or using company equipment or systems may have created, received, transmitted, or stored child pornography or other sexually explicit materials must take prompt action to mitigate both their civil and criminal liability exposure.  In addition to taking prompt action to prevent, investigate and discipline employees and agents that violate employer policies against using or possessing sexually inappropriate materials, businesses also should promptly seek the assistance of competent legal counsel to evaluate whether the prohibited conduct violated federal child pornography or other criminal laws.  Where an investigation uncovers evidence of a potential violation of such laws, employers should seek assistance of counsel experienced with both employment and white collar criminal laws about the advisability of notifying federal law enforcement officials about that evidence and the best procedures to use to make those disclosures. In addition, employers should implement reasonable procedures to prevent and minor activities that may suggest employees or others granted access to company systems may be engaging in prohibited actions and take well documented action to investigate and redress this suspected misconduct. 

As the monitoring and investigation of these concerns typically will require that an employer search or monitor employee e-mail or other files, employers also should ensure that they have in place appropriate privacy disclaimer, system use and background check and investigations that empower the employer to minimize potential exposures to privacy or other employment claims by employees or others whose e-mail or other files or activities are scrutinized in connection with these activities.

 Chair of the Curran Tomko LLP Labor and Employment Practice and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer regularly assists U.S. businesses to investigate and redress sexual harassment and other employment and internal controls matters.  If your organization needs assistance with investigating or responding to a suspected sex discrimination or sexual harassment matter involving pornography or other suspected employee misconduct under company policies or applicable federal or state law, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402 or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP team, see the www.cttlegal.com.

Comments Off on Some Sexual Harassment Policy Violations Carry Criminal Risks For Employers | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

COBRA Premium Reduction and Extended Eligibility Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

May 2, 2009

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) today (May 1, 2009) continued its efforts to increase awareness of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) by sharing information with state agencies and asking their assistance in helping dislocated workers, businesses, and partners in understanding the new law.

Under ARRA, employees involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 and their dependents may be able to qualify for a 65% discount in the required premium they must pay to maintain COBRA coverage under their former employer’s group health plan for up to 9 months.  Special rules also apply to former employees who qualify for Trade Adjustment Assistance or affected by certain Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation insurance programs.

Employers must pay the remaining amount of the otherwise required COBRA premium, but can request reimbursement from the Internal Revenue Service by filing for a payroll tax credit under the provisions of ARRA. 

Group health plans were required to begin complying with the new ARRA rules beginning February 17, 2009 and to notify workers of the new rules no later than April 18, 2009.  Many employers and their group health plan sponsors are still working to complete the necessary arrangements to comply with these new requirements.

The communication of information about the new provisions by the DOL, group health plans, employers and the media have prompted an outpouring of questions from many employees and their dependents, confused about their eligibility for the ARRA COBRA Subsidy and its workings.

In Training And Employment Notice No. 42-08, which is addressed to state workforce agencies, labor commissioners and other state workforce regulators, the Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”):

  •  Shared certain basic information about ARRA’s COBRA, Trade Adjustment Assistance and other workforce assistance relief;
  • Detailed some of the training and other resources provided by the DOL to help States and their citizens understand these new provisions and the procedures for their use; and
  • Asked the regulators to assist in communicating and disseminating the information to individuals who might qualify for benefits and other interested parties.

Interested persons can review the announcement at http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEN/ten2008/TEN42-08acc.pdf.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally known for her knowledge and experience on COBRA and other health benefit and employee benefit matters,.  You will find several of these previous publications on the new ARRA COBRA provisions on prior editions of the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update.  You also can access some of the many practical updates that she has prepared on these and other COBRA matters by e-mailing or contacting her.  She and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its COBRA or other employee benefit or human resources practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402 or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. 

For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the http://www.cttlegal.com.

Comments Off on COBRA Premium Reduction and Extended Eligibility Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 | COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, Insurance, Stimulus Bill, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ Antitrust Enforcement Actions Signal Need to Audit Adequacy of Employment, Ethics & Internal Controls Policies & Practices To Minimize Rising DOJ & Other Antitrust Exposures

April 23, 2009

U.S. businesses should review the adequacy of their existing antitrust Federal Sentencing Guidance Compliance policies and internal controls in light of a series of recently announced antitrust enforcement actions recently announced by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).  U.S. and other businesses and their employees and agents who engage in prohibited antitrust activities face substantial criminal and civil penalties in actions brought by the DOJ, civil judgments brought by private plaintiffs, or both.  To effectively manage these exposures, businesses and leadership must ensure that their organization has in place appropriate employment, corporate ethics and internal controls and procedures for preventing, investigating and redressing potential violations.  The management and discipline of employees and other service providers that violate these and other compliance policies is an increasingly important responsibility of human resources and other management leaders.

 

On Monday (April 20, 2009), DOJ announced that two subsidiaries of the Swedish company Trelleborg AB, one based in Virginia and the other in France, have agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of $11 million in criminal fines for participating in separate conspiracies affecting the sales of marine products sold in the United States and elsewhere.  The plea agreements are among at least 9 major antitrust enforcement actions announced by the DOJ since the first of the year, including the longest sentence yet imposed for an antitrust criminal conviction.

 

Trelleborg Engineered Products Inc. &

Trelleborg Industries S.A.S. Plea Agreements

The plea agreement resolves a two-count felony charge filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Va., against Virginia Harbor Services Inc., formerly known as Trelleborg Engineered Products Inc. (VHS/TEPI), a manufacturer of foam-filled marine fenders, buoys and plastic marine pilings headquartered in Clearbrook, Va.  Foam-filled marine fenders are used as a cushion between ships and either fixed structures, such as docks or piers, or floating structures, such as other ships. Foam-filled buoys are used in a variety of applications, including as channel markers and navigational aids. Plastic marine pilings are substitutes for traditional wood timber pilings and are often used in port and pier construction projects in conjunction with foam-filled fenders. According to the charges, VHS/TEPI participated in a conspiracy between December 2002 and August 2005 to allocate customers and rig bids for contracts to sell foam-filled marine fenders and buoys, and also participated in a separate conspiracy between December 2002 and May 2003 to allocate customers and rig bids for contracts to sell plastic marine pilings. Under the terms of the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, VHS/TEPI has agreed to pay a $7.5 million criminal fine and to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation. To date, six individuals and two corporations have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation of fraud and collusion in the marine fenders and pilings industries.

 

In addition, a one-count felony charge was filed today in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against Trelleborg Industries S.A.S. (TISAS), a manufacturer of marine hose headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France. TISAS is charged with participating in a conspiracy from at least as early as 1999 and continuing until as late as May 2, 2007, to allocate market shares, fix prices and rig bids for contracts to sell marine hose to purchasers in the United States and elsewhere. Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities. Under the terms of the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, TISAS has agreed to pay a $3.5 million criminal fine and to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation. To date, three corporations have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation in the marine hose industry. Twelve individuals have also been charged to date, nine of whom have pleaded guilty.

 

The plea agreements announced this week are part of a continuing DOJ investigation, which already lead to five former executives of TISAS and VHS/TEPI entering guilty pleas to participating in the conspiracies charged. Former VHS/TEPI president Robert B. Taylor was sentenced in January 2008 to serve 24 months in prison and pay a $300,000 criminal fine. Former VHS/TEPI chief financial officer Donald L. Murray was sentenced in March 2008 to serve 18 months in prison and pay a $75,000 criminal fine. William Alan Potts, a former vice president of VHS/TEPI, was sentenced in June 2008 to serve six months in prison and six months in home detention, and to pay a $60,000 criminal fine. Former TISAS executives Christian Caleca and Jacques Cognard were each sentenced in December 2007 to serve 14 months in prison and to pay criminal fines of $75,000 and $100,000, respectively.

 

Other Recent Antitrust Enforcement Activities

The plea agreements announced this week are the latest in a series of antitrust enforcement actions recently taken by the DOJ.  Since the first of the year alone, DOJ also has announced a series of other major antitrust enforcement actions, including, for instance:

 

On April 9, 2009, DOJ announced that Cargolux Airlines International S.A., Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd. and Asiana Airlines Inc. plead guilty and agreed to pay a total of $214 million in criminal fines to settle price fixing charges.

  • On March 31, a San Francisco federal grand jury indicted Hitachi Displays Ltd. executive Sakae Someya with conspiring with unnamed co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels sold to Dell Inc. for use in notebook computers.  With this indictment, four companies and eight individuals have been charged in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation into the TFT-LCD industry and more than $585 million in fines have been imposed as a result.
  • On March 10, Somey’s employer, Japanese electronics manufacturer Hitachi Displays Ltd., agreed to plead guilty and pay a $31 million fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc.
  • On February 10, 2009, a federal grand jury in San Francisco indicted former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. with conspiring with others to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices, reducing output and allocating market shares of color display tubes (CDTs) to be sold in the U.S. and elsewhere.  The indictment also charges C.Y. Lin with conspiring with others to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices for color picture tubes (CPTs) to be sold in the U.S. and elsewhere.
  • On February 3, 2009, a San Francisco federal grand jury indicted two former executives from Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. (Chunghwa) and one former executive from LG Display Co. Ltd. (LG) for participation in a global conspiracy to fix prices of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels.
  • On January 1, 2009, former high-level shipping executive Peter Baci was sentenced to serve the longest jail sentence ever imposed for a single antitrust charge, 48 months in jail, and to pay a $20,000 criminal fine for his role in an antitrust conspiracy involving the transportation of goods to and from the continental United States and Puerto Rico by ocean vessel by agreeing to allocate customers, agreeing to rig bids submitted to government and commercial buyers, and agreeing to fix the prices of rates, surcharges, and other fees charged to customers. Related antitrust charges remain pending in the U.S. District Court in Jacksonville against three other shipping executives: R. Kevin Gill and Gregory Glova, of Charlotte, N.C. and Gabriel Serra, of San Juan, Puerto Rico. A related obstruction of justice charge is also pending against a fifth shipping executive, Alexander Chisholm, of Jacksonville. 
  • On January 22, 2009, three air cargo carriers, LAN Cargo S.A. (LAN Cargo), Aerolinhas Brasileiras S.A. (ABSA), and EL AL Israel Airlines Ltd. (EL AL), plead guilty and agreed to pay criminal fines totaling $124.7 million for their roles in a conspiracy to fix prices in the air cargo industry, the Department of Justice announced today. Under the plea agreements, LAN Cargo, a Chilean company, and ABSA, a Brazilian company that is substantially owned by LAN Cargo, have agreed to pay a single criminal fine of $109 million. EL AL, an Israeli company, has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $15.7 million. According to the charges against the airlines, each airline engaged in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to eliminate competition by fixing the cargo rates charged to customers for international air shipment.
  • Under a plea agreement announced January 15, 2009, Chang Suk “C.S.” Chung, a Korean LG executive, Chieng-Hon “Frank” Lin, a Taiwanese former executive from Chunghwa, and Chih-Chun “C.C.” Liu and Hsueh-Lung “Brian” Lee, Taiwanese current employees of Chungwha, agreed to serve a term of imprisonment, pay a criminal fine and assist the government in its ongoing TFT-LCD investigation.  

Businesses & Business Leaders Must Have

Effective Internal Controls & Compliance Practices

These DOJ actions and a host of others in recent years document provide examples of DOJ’s willingness to investigate and prosecute price-fixing, bid-rigging and other antitrust violations.  The felony penalties associated with federal antitrust violations bring antitrust sanctions within the purview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  As a result, businesses that fail to take adequate steps to prevent or redress antitrust violations risk vicarious liability for violations committed but their employees or agents.  Furthermore, business leaders investigating suspected violations must exercise caution to appropriately investigate and redress alleged or suspected violations to both protect themselves and their organization against liability based on allegations of endorsement by tolerance, potential cover up or other misconduct in connection with the investigation and redress process. At the same time, timely investigation, oversight and redress can substantially mitigate these liability exposures under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  Accordingly, to prevent and position themselves and their organizations to defend against potential antitrust complaints, businesses and businesses leaders should both adopt appropriate policies prohibiting their organizations and its employees and agents from engaging in price-fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive practices prohibited by federal or state antitrust laws, as well as establish and administer well-documented training and oversight practices to prevent, detect and redress potential or attempted violations of these policies.

 

To effectively manage these exposures, businesses and leadership must ensure that their organization has in place appropriate procedures for preventing, investigating and redressing potential violations.  Among other things, businesses and their leaders should be certain their organization: 

  • Has up to date policies in place and a process to monitor regulatory and enforcement developments for necessary updates;
  • Can demonstrate that it is appropriately administering well-documented audit, training and enforcement practices to prevent and redress potential violations as part of its corporate ethics and human resources practices;
  • Uses appropriate vendor selection, contracting, audit and oversight processes to promote compliance by business partners, agents and others with which it does business;
  • Has identified experienced counsel and developed a process for engaging counsel to assist in the audit of ongoing compliance efforts as well as the timely conduct of internal investigations of possible infractions within the scope of attorney-client privilege;
  • Designated an ethics or compliance officer, or other appropriate party to receive and investigate suspected compliance concerns and reports;
  • Has effective privacy, investigations, employment and other policies and procedures to enable the business to investigate, discipline and defend employment actions against employees or other workers for improper conduct;
  • Has appropriate processes and procedures for responding to government investigations and private compliance complaints; and
  • Promptly investigates and responds to reports of infractions or other compliance concerns in an appropriate and well documented manner.

 

Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP and its attorneys have significant experience assisting businesses and business leaders to establish, administer, enforce and defend antitrust and other compliance and internal control policies and practices to reduce risk under federal and state antitrust and other laws covered by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Labor & Employment Section Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; Edwin J. Tomko, CTT White Collar Crime Section Chair, at etomko@cttlegal.com, 214 270-1405 or any of the other following members of the Curren Tomko Tarski LLP team experienced in these and other internal controls matters.

 

 

 

For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curren Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.

More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com.  For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com or registering to receive these Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update at the above link.

 

Comments Off on DOJ Antitrust Enforcement Actions Signal Need to Audit Adequacy of Employment, Ethics & Internal Controls Policies & Practices To Minimize Rising DOJ & Other Antitrust Exposures | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Military Leave Differential Payments Subject To Income Tax, Not FICA or FUTA

April 17, 2009

Employers that pay differential pay to employees absent on active duty military leave job must withhold income tax, but need not withhold or pay Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) or Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”) taxes on those payments, according to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling to be published May 4, 2009.

According to Revenue Ruling 2009-11, employers must withhold income tax and include military duty differential pay in wages reported on the recipient employee’s Form W-2. It also states employers may use the aggregate procedure or optional flat rate withholding to calculate the amount of income taxes required to be withheld on these payments.

Proper tax withholding and reporting is one of the expanding responsibilities that employers must juggle when a member of their workforce is a current or former members of the military and their family members including, for example, federal and state military leave mandates and new military caregiver and other family leave requirements for family members of members of the military that took effect during the past year. Employers should review their employment and employee benefit practices to confirm they are up to date with these expanded requirements.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at e-mail, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curren Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.

More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com.  If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.

 

 

Comments Off on Military Leave Differential Payments Subject To Income Tax, Not FICA or FUTA | Corporate Compliance, Employment Tax, Human Resources, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers

April 15, 2009

U.S. employers should audit existing wage and hour practices and documentation and take other steps to defend against the heightened emphasis on enforcement of federal wage overtime, minimum wage, child labor and other wage and hour laws announced by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD). In a March 5, 2009 WHD Press Release, recently appointed Obama Administration Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced that WHD is adding 250 new field investigators and taking other steps to strengthen its enforcement of federal minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws.  In her March 5, 2009 Press Release, Secretary Solis stated, “The addition of these 250 new field investigators, a staff increase of more than a third, will reinvigorate the work of this important agency, which has suffered a loss of experienced personnel over the last several years.”

The announced expansion of staffing comes in part in response to two reports made to Congress by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) over the past year, which were highly critical of the enforcement activities of the WHD under the Bush Administration.  In a 2009 GAO Report To Congress released March 25, 2009, the GAO reported that a recent GAO audit of WHD enforcement found that sluggish response times, a poor complaint intake process, and failed conciliation attempts, among other problems left workers vulnerable to wage theft.  The 2009 Report followed up on a 2008 GAO Report To Congress that case studies showed that WHD inadequately investigated minimum wage and overtime complaints by inappropriately rejecting complaints based on incorrect information provided by employers, failing to make adequate attempts to locate employers, not thoroughly investigating and resolving complaints,  and delaying initiating investigations for over a year and then dropping the complaint because the statute of limitations for assessing back wages was close to expiring.

The continuing emphasis of the DOL upon FLSA enforcement, coupled with the growth in FLSA enforcement actions by private plaintiffs, provides an important warning to employers of low wage workers specifically, as well as employers generally, of the importance of being prepared to defend their worker classification and overtime practices against DOL and/or private litigant investigations.  When it updated its regulations governing the classification of workers as exempt versus non-exempt under the FLSA in 2004, the DOL urged employers to review and update their worker classification and overtime practices to comply with the updated regulations.  At the same time, the DOL announced its intention to vigorously enforce its FLSA regulations against employers failing to adhere to these updated rules.  Despite these widely publicized compliance efforts, DOL studies of employer compliance with overtime rules continue to reflect that 50 percent of employers are not in compliance with these mandates. Therefore, in addition to adjusting existing rates of pay to comply with the increased minimum wage, employers also should:

Audit overtime pay practices to verify they comply with applicable federal and state requirements,

Review workers classified as exempt employees and/or non-employee contractors in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws to assess the sustainability of these characterizations against a legal challenge; and

Audit the adequacy of current practices for tracking and documenting time worked by non-exempt workers in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws.

 

Employers are cautioned to keep in mind that employers generally bear the burden of proving that their existing worker classification, wage and overtime practices meet or exceed the minimum standards imposed by the FLSA and any applicable state wage and hour law.


 

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting businesses to audit, administer and defend minimum wage, overtime and other wage and hour practices under federal and state wage and hour laws, as well as with other labor and employment, employee benefits and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, , please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see www.cttlegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers | Corporate Compliance, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Wage & Hour | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New IRS’ 2009 “Dirty Dozen” Tax Scams List Invites Whistleblower Claims Against Employers, Others Engaged In Listed Transactions

April 14, 2009

The release yesterday (April 13, 2009) by the Internal Revenue Service of its 2009 “Dirty Dozen” Tax Scams List reminds businesses of the need to act to minimize exposures to tax related whistleblower or other retaliation claims by employees and other service providers that allege the potential involvement of the business in tax scams or other improper tax transactions.

 

Businesses face whistleblower, tax fraud prosecution, additional tax and penalty liability and other sanctions for involvement in tax shelters or other tax schemes.  Employees and other service provider reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are the leading means through which the IRS identifies and proves fraudulent tax activities.

 

Yesterday’s IRS announcement of its 2009 “dirty dozen” list of tax scams heightens whistleblower risks for businesses by encouraging employees and others who may have knowledge of a business or other taxpayer’s involvement in these or other prohibited tax practices to report their suspicions to the IRS and sharing instructions on how to report suspected tax fraud to the IRS as a whistleblower.  As part of these instructions, the announcement notes that “[w]histleblowers also may provide allegations of fraud to the IRS and may be eligible for a reward.”

 

The 2009 “dirty dozen” list of tax scams warns businesses about getting involved in 12 tax transactions that the IRS views as likely to create tax fraud and whistleblower risks. The tax schemes that made the 2009 Dirty Dozen List include:

  • Hiding Income Offshore
  • Filing False or Misleading Forms
  • Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions
  • Return Preparer Fraud
  • Making Frivolous Arguments 
  • Making False Claims for Refund and Requests for Abatement
  • Abusive Retirement Plans
  • Disguised Corporate Ownership
  • Zero Wages
  • Misuse of Trusts
  • Fuel Tax Credit Scams

Taxpayers participating in the 2009 Dirty Dozen Tax Scams and other tax transactions listed as tax scams by the IRS risk exposure to additional taxes and penalties, prosecution for tax fraud, and potential whistleblower claims.  The Dirty Dozen list singles out for special attention some of the many tax transactions that the IRS views as tax shelters or tax fraud.  Depending on the nature of a business and its tax and compensation activities, businesses also may need to be concerned about scrutiny by the IRS for involvement in various other types of transactions that the IRS has identified as suspect. The IRS is urging U.S. businesses and other taxpayers to avoid participation in these common schemes.

 

Businesses engaged or accused of engaging in these or other transactions listed as tax scams or tax shelters by the IRS should exercise caution to confirm the appropriateness of the proposed transaction, to document their investigation of allegations of improper tax activities.  For profit and non-profit businesses should include appropriate tax compliance oversight in their internal controls and federal sentencing guideline compliance programs.  Businesses should review their activities in light of lists of IRS abusive transactions, should evaluate whether any of their transactions may be subject to scrutiny by the IRS, and take other appropriate steps to mitigate their exposure to prosecution for tax fraud, to tax related whistleblower liability and other risks.   Businesses also should exercise care when dealing with employees or service providers who make allegations that the business may be involved in improper tax activities.   Businesses also need to be prepared to demonstrate that they have not retaliated against individuals who report suspected tax fraud.  The best defense to retaliation claims is a consistent, well documented legitimate performance and discipline record.  Businesses should strengthen and consistently apply their employee performance and discipline processes to improve performance and deter whistleblower or other retaliation judgments.  As part of this process, businesses also should adopt and enforce policies requiring employees and other service providers to report suspected tax or other compliance concerns, administer documented processes for receiving and investigating allegations of potential fraud or other noncompliance, and should document their conclusions and any corrective actions in response to these investigations.

 

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting establish and administer employment, corporate compliance, internal and external fraud and other controls; to investigate potential fraud or other misconduct; to defend employment, whistleblower, Federal or state criminal or civil investigations, audits and prosecutions and to address other employment, employee benefits and corporate compliance matters.  If your organization needs assistance with assessing or managing its risk management and compliance responsibilities or liabilities under health care, employment, environmental, antitrust, securities or other federal or state laws, wishes to inquire about compliance audit or training or other services; or would like to review or engage and experience of Ms. Stamer, or other Curren Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402;  or see CTTLegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.

More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see http://cynthiastamer.com/human_resources.asp or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com.  If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog at https://slphrbenefitsupdate.wordpress.com.

 

 

 

Comments Off on New IRS’ 2009 “Dirty Dozen” Tax Scams List Invites Whistleblower Claims Against Employers, Others Engaged In Listed Transactions | Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Must Begin using New I-9 Form April 3, 2009; Government Contractor E-Verify Rules Take Effect May 21, 2009

April 2, 2009

 

U.S. employers must begin using the revised U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Employment Eligibility Verification Form known as the I-9 (Form I-9) on April 3, 2009.  Meanwhile, certain federal contractors and subcontractors also must prepare to comply with impending requirements to use USCIS E-Verify when hiring employees scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009.

New Form I-9

The use of the new Form I-9 is required under an interim rule published by USCIS in December 2008.  The interim rule also changes the types of acceptable identity and employment authorization documents employers can accept from new hires and prohibits employees from using expired identification documents to verify their work eligibility beginning April 3, 2009.  Employers will be required to use the new Form I-9 and to secure documentation of proof of eligibility to work in accordance with the revised rules contained in the interim rule for all new hires and to reverify any employee with expiring employment authorization in accordance with the interim regulations beginning on April 3, 2009.

Employers can download a copy of the new Form I-9 at http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-9_IFR_02-02-09.pdf. The interim regulations are available for review at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29874.htm.  USCIS presently is updating the Handbook for Employers, Instructions for Completing the Form I-9 (M-274). 

The new Form I-9 replaces the June 5, 2007 edition of the Form I-9 (the Old Form I-9), which will not be valid for use after April 2, 2009.  A big change in the new Form I-9 requirements is that expired documents cannot be accepted as proof of eligibility to work. All documents presented during the Form I-9 completion process now must be unexpired.  The new Form I-9 and interim regulations also add and remove certain documents to the list of documents that employers can accept of proof of identity and/or eligibility to work in the U.S.

The interim rule originally was scheduled to take effect on Feb. 2, 2009.  The Obama Administration extended the effective date to April 3, 2009 under a directive issued in January.

Federal Contractor  E-Verify Rule Scheduled To Take Effect May 21, 2009

Certain federal contractors and subcontractors also need to prepare to comply with a new federal rule that will require them to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009.  The rule will only affect federal contractors who are awarded a new contract after May 21st that includes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause.  Federal contractors may NOT use E-Verify to verify current employees until the rule becomes effective and they are awarded a contract that includes the FAR E-Verify Clause. 

The new rule implements Executive Order 12989, as amended by President George W. Bush on June 6, 2008, directing federal agencies to require that federal contractors agree to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees.   The amended Executive Order reinforces the policy, first announced in 1996, that the federal government does business with companies that have a legal workforce. This new rule requires federal contractors to agree, through language inserted into their federal contracts, to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons hired during a contract term, and to confirm the employment eligibility of federal contractors’ current employees who perform contract services for the federal government within the United States.

Interested persons can review the final regulation and read frequently asked questions about this new rule on the internet at the following cites:

ü      Final Regulation at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-26904.htm

ü      Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=cb2a535e0869d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

If you have questions or concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other human resources, employee benefits or compensation matters, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or publication, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail to Cstamer@Solutionslawyer.net. .

 

More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful resources or additional information about Ms. Stamer at CynthiaStamer.com or by contacting Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com.   You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog at https://slphrbenefitsupdate.wordpress.com.

Comments Off on Employers Must Begin using New I-9 Form April 3, 2009; Government Contractor E-Verify Rules Take Effect May 21, 2009 | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

JPI & United Airlines Lawsuits Highlight Rising Discrimination Risks To US Businesses

March 22, 2009

A federal Fair Housing Act lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department against a large Dallas-based construction and development company Tuesday, March 10, 2009 and the settlement of a United Airlines employment disability discrimination lawsuit announced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 16, 2009 provide a warning to all U.S. businesses to strengthen their employment and other nondiscrimination policies and practices.   The actions highlight the growing exposures that businesses face to employment and other discrimination claims under Federal law. 

 

JPS Fair Housing Act & ADA Suit

The Justice Department’s suit against JPS coincides with a surge in filings of employment discrimination claims and on the heels of Congresses enactment of pro-plaintiff amendments to employment and other federal discrimination laws like those enacted under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 signed into law last September. As the Obama Administration and the Democratic Majority in Congress continue to push for further liberalization of these laws, the JPI lawsuit provides tangible confirmation of the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement of federal nondiscrimination laws. The Justice Department’s proclamation in its announcement of its filing of the suit against JPI that “Fighting illegal housing discrimination is a top priority” affirms this commitment under the Fair Housing Act. See “Justice Department Sues Large Multi-Family Housing Developer Alleging Disability-Based Housing Discrimination, U.S. Justice Department (March 10, 2009) at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-crt-187.html. 

The Justice Department lawsuit charges JPI Construction L.P. (JPI) and six JPI-affiliated companies (JPI) with violating the Fair Housing Act and the public accommodations provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by the failing to provide allegedly required accessible features at multi-family housing developments in Texas and other states.  The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

According to the complaint, the JPI defendants failed to design and construct accessible dwelling units and public and common use areas at Jefferson Center Apartments in Austin, Texas; Jefferson at Mission Gate Apartments in Plano, Texas; and additional multi-family housing complexes in other states. The complaint alleges certain complexes designed and constructed by the JPI defendants have inaccessible steps and curbs leading to units, steeply sloped routes leading to units, and no accessible routes to site amenities, including inaccessible trash facilities, barbeque grills and cookout tables. In addition, certain housing units have narrow doors and hallways; kitchens that lack accessible clear floor space at the sinks, ranges and refrigerators; bathrooms that lack accessible clear floor space at the toilets and tubs; and thermostats that are mounted too high to be accessible to a person using a wheelchair. The Justice Department complaint asks the court to order monetary damages to victims of the alleged discrimination, to issue a court order requiring the defendants to modify the complexes to bring them into compliance with federal law, to prohibit future discrimination by the JPI defendants, and to assess civil penalties.

 

United Airlines & Other Evidence of Rising Employment Discrimination Exposures 

The JPI lawsuit is one of many signs of the rising discrimination exposures businesses face under federal discrimination laws.  Employment discrimination risks also are soaring and the tightening economy promises to add further fuel to the fire.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) statistics show workplace discrimination charge filings nationwide soared to an unprecedented level of 95,402 during Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, up 15 percent over the previous fiscal year.   All major categories of charge filings in the private sector including suits against private employers, as well as state and local governments increased. Charges based on age and retaliation saw the largest annual increases, while allegations based on race, sex and retaliation continued as the most frequently filed charges. The surge in charge filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, employees’ greater awareness of the law, EEOC’s focus on systemic litigation, and changes to EEOC’s intake practices.

The EEOC also continues to vigorously pursue disability and other discrimination charges.  On March 16, 2009, for example, the EEOC announced United Airlines has agreed to pay $850,000 and to change its light duty policies to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the EEOC that alleged that the company’s policy of denying overtime work to anyone on light duty violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  The EEOC charged that the policy had greater repercussions for employees with disabilities, since these workers were more likely to be assigned to light United will pay the $850,000 to a class of employees with disabilities denied the opportunity to work overtime while placed on light or limited duty.  duty when medically cleared to work overtime.   The settlement also requires United to notify all current and former employees at the San Francisco Airport who were subject to the rescinded policy and invite them to submit claims to share in the $850,000.

 

Businesses Must Act To Manage Risks

In this increasingly risky climate, businesses should review and update their existing policies and practices prohibiting unlawful discrimination in employment and the provision of services based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, veteran status or other grounds prohibited by law and take other steps to prepare to demonstrate their compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws in operation as well as form. While adopting and communicating appropriate policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination in the provisions of goods, services, and employment is an important element of these compliance efforts, businesses also must take appropriate steps to ensure their operations match the words of their policies.  Businesses should not assume that the usual recital of their equal employment and services policies alone will suffice.  Businesses also need to have and administer well-documented practices and procedures governing the report, investigation and disposition of complaints.  These procedures should include clearly written and well communicated procedures to be used to report suspected violations.  Businesses also must establish and communicate clear procedures requiring employees both to comply with these rules and to report known or suspected violations. Businesses also should train workforce members on these policies and procedures and consequences for their violation. Businesses also should consider establishing compliance hotlines and using other compliance audit processes to monitor and address possible violations.  They should be prepared to demonstrate they take seriously and take appropriate action to investigate suspected violations, to rectify confirmed violations, and to appropriately discipline employees or others that participate in prohibited violations. 

Businesses needing advice or assistance to review or defend existing disability and other non-discrimination policies and practices should contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.  To register for future updates or to review other recent updates, helpful links and information about employment and other internal controls matters, or the author, see CynthiaStamer. com. 

Comments Off on JPI & United Airlines Lawsuits Highlight Rising Discrimination Risks To US Businesses | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

United To Pay $850,000, Stop Disallowing Overtime To Employees On Light Duty To Settle Disability Discrimination Suit

March 22, 2009

Businesses applying policies that limit or restrict the availability of overtime for employees on light duty should review their practices in light of a settlement with United Airlines announced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last week. 

On March 16, 2009, the EEOC announced United Airlines has agreed to pay $850,000 and make policy changes to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the EEOC that challenged that the company’s policy of denying overtime work to anyone on light duty violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  United will pay the $850,000 to a class of employees with disabilities denied the opportunity to work overtime while placed on light or limited duty.  The EEOC charged that the policy had an impermissable disparate impact for employees with disabilities, since these workers were more likely to be assigned to light duty when medically cleared to work overtime.   The settlement also requires United to notify all current and former employees at the San Francisco Airport who were subject to the rescinded policy and invite them to submit claims to share in the $850,000.  Businesses with similar light duty policies or other workplace rules that disproportionately impact persons with disabilities or in other protected status hould review and update their policies in response to these and other potential challenges.  

 

If your  business that has questions about this development or needs assistance managing discrimination or other employment risks, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469.767.8872 or cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.  To register for future updates or for other helpful information, see CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on United To Pay $850,000, Stop Disallowing Overtime To Employees On Light Duty To Settle Disability Discrimination Suit | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Next Entries »