Employers should carefully scrutinize job reassignments for possible sex or other prohibited bias in light of the Supreme Court’s April 17th ruling holding job detriment suffered from a discriminatory reassignment need need not be significant to be actionable.
The Supreme Court’s Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision resulted from a Title VII lawsuit brought by Sergeant Latonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police officer against the St. Louis Police Department, challenging her reassignment as sexually discriminatory.
Muldrow alleged that she was transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department because of her gender. Despite maintaining her rank and pay, Muldrow’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were significantly altered. She filed a Title VII suit against the City of St. Louis, claiming that the transfer constituted sex discrimination with respect to her employment terms and conditions.
Muldrow appealed to the Supreme Court after both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit held that since the transfer did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits and only caused minor changes in working conditions, Muldrow’s lawsuit could not proceed. Those courts ruled Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage.”
The Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII only needed to show some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions, not that the harm was significant.
The ruling that proof of significant job detriment is not required for a reassigned employee to prove a job assignment discriminatory allows reassigned employee’s significantly more latitude to challenge reassignments as discriminatory. Consequently, employers considering reassignments of employees should carefully scrutinize the proposed changes holistically for any potential detriment that affected employees might use to demonstrate discriminatory job detriment. Additionally, employers also should carefully identify and document valid business, discipline or other defensible justifications for planned job reassignment before taking action to make the job reassignment. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of reviews and discussions regarding this analysis, employers generally will want to conduct this analysis with the guidance of a qualified attorney and within the scope of attorney-client privilege.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health, employ benefits, insurance, hospitality, retail, construction and other industry management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer has decades of experience advising and defending employers on wage and hour and other labor and employment laws.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her experience includes extensive involvement advising clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination; EBSA, IRS, and PBGC employee benefit; WHD, CAS, Davis-Bacon and other federal and state wage and hour and other compensation; OSHA and other investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
A newly announced religious discrimination settlement reminds employers of the advisability of reviewing and strengthening the defensibility of their grooming, dress code, scheduling and time off and other employment policies, practices and other procedures for applying, granting or denying religious exceptions, and other employment practices to defend against potential discrimination exposures in light of rising religious sensitivities, the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023) and emerging Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance and enforcement.
Religious Discrimination & Accommodation Under Civil Rights Act
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice, unless an accommodation would impose an undue hardship. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. It also prohibits:
Forcing an employee to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment;
Subjecting an applicant or employee to offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practice or other harassment that creates a hostile or offensive work environment or results in an adverse employment decision or other job detriment or certain other types of harassment, whether by the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer;
Workplace or job segregation based on religion including religious garb and grooming practices;
Failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business taking into account all relevant factors, including the particular accommodation at issue and its practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer; and
Retaliating against an employee or applicant based on good faith exercise of his right to be free from religious discrimination or cooperation in investigations or other protected activities.
The duty to provide religious accommodation applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee follows as part of the employee’s religious reasons such as wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress or hairstyles or facial hair. It also includes an employee’s observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments such as pants or miniskirts.
Under the Civil Rights Act, the obligation to provide religious accommodation generally applies unless the employer demonstrate that the accommodation of the employee’s religious beliefs or practices would cause undue hardship to the employer. The burden of proving an undue hardship rests on the employer, who must show that the accommodation burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business, taking into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodation at issue and its practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of the employer.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy confirms employers seeking to defend their denial of a request for religious accommodation must be prepared to prove granting the religious accommodation request would impose a significant burden on the employer, holding the defense of undue hardship requires proof a burden that is “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business” “taking into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” Mere proof a a “de minimis cost” will not suffice. See also EEOC Notice Concerning the Undue Hardship Standard in Title VII Religious Accommodation Cases.
Blackwell Security Services Religious Discrimination Litigation Settlement
The settlement with Blackwell Security Services, Inc. (Blackwell) recently announced by the EEOC highlights the challenge employers should anticipate facing in defending a denial of an employee or applicant request for exception from a dress code, grooming or other employer policy for religious reasons.
On January 31, 2024, the EEOC announced Blackwell will pay $70,000 and provide other relief to settle the EEOC’s religious discrimination lawsuit that charged Blackwell wrongfully refused to accommodate a Muslim employee’s religious practice of wearing a beard in observance of his religious beliefs.
According to the EEOC, shortly after Blackwell hired the employee, a Blackwell supervisor told the employee that company policy required all employees be clean-shaven. When the employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or face termination even though the EEOC determined accommodating his religious practice would impose no cost or operational burden on the business. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied and shaved his beard, causing him significant distress.
Under the consent decree resolving the EEOC lawsuit, Blackwell will pay $70,000 in compensation to the now-former employee. Blackwell will also provide training to relevant management employees on federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination and will report any additional complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC for the decree’s duration.
Employee Religious Discrimination Risks Rising
The EEOC charge and lawsuit against Blackwell is one of a deluge of religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC in recent years. In fact, EEOC enforcement data shows that religious discrimination charges received by the EEOC soared from 2,111 in 2021 to 13,814 in 2022 while over the same period settlements rose from 146 in 2021 to 730 in 2022.
The chart represents the total number of charges filed and resolved under Title VII alleging religion-based discrimination as compiled by the Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics from data compiled from the EEOC’s Integrated Mission System. This does not include charges filed with state or local Fair Employment Practices Agencies. *EEOC notes, “In FY 2022, there was a significant increase in vaccine-related charges filed on the basis of religion. As a result, FY 2022 data may vary compared to previous years.” ** Does not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation.See https://www.eeoc.gov/data/religion-based-charges-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-1997-fy-2022.
A number of factors have fueled the sharp rise in religious accommodation and other religious discrimination risks. Along with the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the high burden of proof employer must meet to justify refusing to grant religious accommodations to employees in Groff v. DeJoy, a series of religious accommodation guidance issued by the EEOC during and following the COVID-19 pandemic health care emergency and demands for religious accommodation exemptions to COVID-19 mask and vaccination mandates heightened awareness and the volume of religious discrimination claims filed with the EEOC. See, e.g., What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. Unsurprisingly, charges from these COVID-19 related and other religious accommodation claims brought since the COVID-19 pandemic health care emergency has and continues to fuel litigation, settlements and judgements. See, e.g., Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit.
With these and other events continuing to escalate sensitivities and awareness of federal laws against religious discrimination, health care and other organizations should act to strengthen their ability to recognize and respond defensibly to religious accommodation and other religious discrimination risks whether arising from patients and other customers, employees or others.
Act To Mitigate Religious Discrimination Risks
In the face of the prioritization that the Biden Administration generally and OCR specifically is placing on religious and national origin in connection with the current Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, all covered facilities should brace for heightened oversight and enforcement by OCR the EEOC and other federal agencies, as well as private litigants. These organizations also should guard against retaliation liability, which can result even where the discrimination claim fails.
As a starting point, health care and other organizations should begin by reviewing their existing complaint history, policies, practices, training, reporting and investigation practices within the scope of attorney-client privilege and revise these policies as needed to strengthen their defensibility.
In connection with this review, health care and other organizations should ensure that their policies, procedures and notices clearly prohibit religious discrimination as well as communicate procedures for persons that believe their religious beliefs merit accommodation or otherwise believe they are subject to religious harassment or other discrimination to communicate their request to a representative of the organization appropriately trained to receive, evaluate and respond to the accommodation request defensibly. Most organizations will want to arrange for qualified legal counsel to be readily available to assist the responsible party with these activities.
Organizations should consider adopting carefully crafted and documented internal procedures for receiving, investigating and responding to religious accommodation request in a manner that promotes their organization’s ability to demonstrate each request is assessed in accordance with the law free from the inappropriate application of assumptions or stereotypes about what constitutes a religious belief or practice or what type of accommodation is appropriate. Organizations should train managers and supervisors to grant religious accommodation requests whenever possible and to refer any questions about the appropriateness or response to any religious accommodation request to the designated responsible party.
When faced with a request for a religious accommodation which the organization believes cannot be implemented without undue hardship, most organizations will want to seek the advice of legal counsel while exploring opportunities to allow the requested or an alternative accommodation on a temporary basis pending further exploration of the requested more permanent accommodation. Appropriate communication and documentation processes also are important. In addition, all organizations will want to ensure that their organization takes appropriate steps to prevent and defend against potential retaliation claims.
Due to the legal and political sensitivity of the practices and analysis involved, employers and others involved in the review of these policies and practices or their application when handling religious accommodation requests or other events raising the potential for religious, national origin, race or related concerns, employers also should consider involving experienced legal counsel about the circumstances, as well as to take advantage of the availability of attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary rules to help mitigate exposures and enhance the defensibility of their actions.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on employment, heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, retail, manufacturing, hospitality, and other organizations of all types and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with employment, employee benefit, compensation, worker classification, contracting, data privacy and security, Federal Sentencing Guideline and other governance and internal control and other rules specifically relating to workforce management, as well as industry and business specific internal controls and other performance management required to manage regulatory, contractual and operational compliance and risk management. Her experience includes decades of involvement advising and representing employers, educational organizations, health care organizations, and other businesses on Civil Rights Act and other federal, state and local discrimination laws.
Author of a thousands of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer, her legal, business and governmental relations consulting, training, public speaking or other services, experience and involvements , see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Pandemic’s End Doesn’t End COVID-19 Employer Headaches
Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc. (“CHOA”) is paying $45,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit arising from its failure to grant a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination requirements for a maintenance worker. The lawsuit highlights the continuing importance of all employers to use care when handling request for religious accommodation to vaccine or other workplace requirements.
The lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) arises from the 2019 denial of a request for a religious exemption to CHOA’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate made by a maintenance worker. CHOA previously had granted the same employee a religious exemption for vaccine mandates in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee working primarily outside and his position requiring limited interaction with the public or staff the EEOC said.
The EEOC alleged the denial of the vaccine exemption violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits firing an employee because of their religion and requires that employers reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees.
Under the consent degree entered in Ciil Action No. 1:22-CV-04953-MLB-RDC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, CHOA will pay $45,000 in monetary damages to the former employee. CHOA will also adjust its influenza vaccine religious exemption policy to presume the exemption eligibility of employees with remote workstations or who otherwise work away from the presence of other employees or patients, and to protect the ability of such employees to seek alternative positions within CHOA if their religious exemption request is denied. The decree further provides that CHOA will train relevant employees on religious accommodation rights under Title VII.
The EEOC announcement of the consent degree alerts employers of the continuing need to use care when handling religious accommodation requests to vaccine or other workplace policies. “ It is the responsibility of an employer to accommodate its employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs,” the announcement quotes Marcus G. Keegan, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Unless doing so would require more than a minimal cost, an employer may not deny requested religious accommodations, let alone revoke those previously granted without issue. The EEOC is pleased that the employee has been compensated and that CHOA has agreed to take steps to ensure that it meets its obligation to evaluate religious accommodation requests in a manner consistent with federal law.”
Likewise, the announcement quotes Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, as saying , “The arbitrary denial of religious accommodations drives religious discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC remains committed to enforcing the laws that protect employees’ religious practices.”
While the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate is gone, many healthcare and other employers continue to impose mandate requirements with appropriate disability and religious exemptions as part of their workplace safety and patient safety protocols. Additionally, beyond the Covid – 19 vaccination protocols, many workplace vaccination and other rules also can create conflicts with certain religious beliefs that prompt religious accommodation requests.
Employers administering these vaccination, and other policies must keep in mind that the duty to offer religious accommodation and the EEOC emphasis on enforcing accommodation rights for workers whose deeply held religious beliefs conflict with workplace rules lives on. The perils remain, even if the requirement is supported by well, established patient or workplace safety protocols. Employers need to evaluate and be prepared to defend their inability to accommodate the safety and other concerns underlying the workplace mandate against a potential religious discrimination challenge.
Employers must remain diligent in their management of responses to request for accommodations keeping in mind that EEOC COVID-19 – era guidance imposes a heavy burden on an employer to justify its refusal of a request. For this reason, employers that receive a request for religious of accommodation from an employee should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel as soon as possible if any question exists about whether the employer will grant the request. Employers also should ensure their policies clearly communicate the availability of religious and disability accommodation from these other requirements, establish clear protocols for requesting and processing those requests and prohibit and prevent retaliation.
To promote defensibility, employers also should consult with experienced legal counsel about the use of attorney, client, privilege, and other protocols to prevent or minimize the risk that discussions and actions in response to, or following a request for accommodation creates evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. At her career, she has worked extensively with healthcare and other employers to manage discrimination and other workplace and employee benefit compliance and risks. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
A new federal lawsuit reminds employers customer preferences or demands cont justify discrimination based on race or other grounds prohibited by federal law.
Brooklyn-based home health company ACARE HHC Inc., doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency (“Four Seasons”) faces a race discrimination suit for allegedly removing home health aides from their work assignments due to their race and national origin to accommodate client preferences.
According to a lawsuit filed (EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760), filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York on July 31, 2023, Four Seasons routinely acceded to racial preferences of patients in making home health aide assignments. The EEOC claims Four Seasons routinely removed Black and Hispanic home health aides based on clients’ race and national origin-based requests. Four Seasons would transfer aides to a new assignment or, if no other assignment was available, the aides lost their employment completely. The EEOC charges this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and national origin. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future discrimination based on employees’ race and national origin.
The lawsuit, warns employers against resigning or assigning workers to accommodate racial or other prohibited discriminatory preferences of customers, or business partners. “Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.
The lawsuit is one of a plethora of enforcement actions by EEOC under the Bill den Administration’s prioritization of expansion and enforcement of discrimination and other workers’ rights laws.
In light of these efforts, employers should take immediate steps to update policies, postings, training and practices to ensure their ability to defend their compliance with race and other federal non discrimination laws.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day to day operations, through times of change and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.
Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other and health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.
A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
A new race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against commerce remanufacturer PRC Industries (PRC) warns other businesses of the increased need to use care to protect their own organizations against employment discrimination and retaliation charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws given the heightened proactivity of the Biden Administration led EEOC in investigation and prosecuting these types of complaints.
PRC Race Suit
According to EEOC’s complaint in EEOC v PRC Industries, Inc. Corp, Case No. 3-27-2023 JJO-VSC, two Black workers, a married couple hired in January 2020 to work at PRC’s Reno, Nevada repair facility faced constant racial taunts and slurs, including the ‘n-word,’ from their supervisors, a brother and sister. The couple also observed the sibling supervisors routinely denigrating other Black employees due to their race. The complaint charges this conduct occurred openly, in front of co-workers and managers. Senior personnel, including a site manager and a vice president, failed to take adequate steps to curb the misconduct, despite being put on notice of the racial harassment. In late-May 2020, when the couple continued to report ongoing offensive treatment, they were fired via text message by one of the supervisors accused of harassment.
The EEOC charges this alleged conduct of tolerating racial harassment and firing the workers for complaining to the EEOC about it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits harassment due to race and requires employers to take prompt action to investigate and stop the misconduct after they receive notice of it.
The EEOC lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.
EEOC Enforcement Warn Other Businesses
The EEOC press release on the lawsuit warns other businesses and their leaders against committing or tolerating similar or other prohibited discrimination or retaliation.
“Leaders set company culture by the language and conduct they choose to tolerate as well as the behavior they model,” said EEOC San Francisco District Director Nancy Sienko. “Federal civil rights laws mandate that employers act promptly and effectively to stop race-based harassment, and the EEOC will hold employers accountable if they fail to meet their obligations.”
The PRC lawsuit is one of the latest in an accelerating civil rights and other employment discrimination and retaliation investigations, charges, and lawsuits the EEOC is taking in response to the proactive civil rights agenda of the Biden Administration.
In pursuit of its mission to advance equal employment opportunity, the EEOC focused on several major areas during FY 2022, including aggressive educational outreach, addressing systemic discrimination, advancing racial justice in the workplace, enforcing pay equity, and addressing the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.
Among other things, the EEOC 2022 Annual Performance Report (APR) (“2022 Data”) shows EEOC has seen an uptick in complaints filed by workers. In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022, the agency received 73,485 new discrimination charges, which represents an increase of almost 20% when compared to the previous fiscal year. The agency also handled more than 475,000 calls —an 18% increase from FY 2021—and managed 32% more emails from the public than the previous year.
To help manage the increased demand and strengthen the agency’s ability to prevent and remedy employment discrimination, the EEOC specifically focused on growing its workforce to meet growing requests for its assistance by filling 352 new positions and 500 total staff vacancies in FY 2022, the majority of which were in frontline positions.
The effects of this proactivity is confirmed by the 2022 EEOC enforcement data. The agency marked several significant accomplishments in FY 2022.
Obtained more than $513 million in monetary benefits for victims of discrimination, an increase from the previous fiscal year;
Resolved over 65,000 charges of discrimination.
Meanwhile in the federal sector, the EEOC:
Conducted more than 3,000 free outreach events reaching almost 220,000 individuals.
Resolved 9,336 hearings;
Recovered more than $132 million for federal workers and applicants; and
Significantly reduced the federal hearing inventory by 25% from FY 2021 to FY 2022
EEOC appears to be continuing its aggressive enforcement into 2023. In March, 2023 alone, for instance, the EEOC has announced the following discrimination and retaliation actions
These and other developments, send a strong message to businesses and business leaders to use their compliance and employment, discrimination and retaliation compliance, and risk management efforts. No b
In the face of these developments, businesses and their leaders should move quickly to audit, their current compliance and risk as well as manage their exposures.
In assessing pre-existing risk, businesses should take in to count the likelihood that compliance and operations may have been disrupted during the COVID healthcare emergency. Additional difficulties in investigating and defending risk also may arise because of turnover in management or other staffing. In light of these and other challenges, many businesses may wish to consider acquiring or increasing their employment practices liability as a backstop against these risks.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, scholarship and thought leadership.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA), a pediatric healthcare system in Georgia, faces a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that charges CHOA violated federal law by firing a maintenance assistant for requesting a religious exemption to its influenza vaccination policy.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits firing an employee because of his religion and requires that employers accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless the employer proves accommodation would impose an undue hardship. EEOC COVID guidance warns employers of the EEOC’s interpretation of the continued applicability of Title VII’s religous accommodation requirements to employers enforcement of COVID and other vaccine mandates. Other related guidance also warns employers to avoid retaliation against employees for expressing religous objections to vaccination policies or engaging in other protected actions in violation of Title VII.
The EEOC’s suit states the maintenance employee, in accordance with CHOA’s procedures, requested a religious exemption to CHOA’s flu vaccination requirements based on sincerely held religious beliefs. CHOA previously granted the employee a religious exemption in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA changed its policy and denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee’s extremely limited interaction with the public or staff.
The EEOC asserts it would not have been an undue burden for CHOA to continue accommodating its employee as it had in 2017 and 2018. However it instead changed its stance on flu vaccination exemptions for this maintenance employee in 2019 and failed to consider any meaningful reasonable accommodations for his sincerely held religious beliefs.
Charging the refusal to grant accommodation arges this alleged conduct violates Title VII, the EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-4953 MLB RDC) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation process. The EEOC lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.
The suit against CHOA follows through on the EEOC’s commitment to investigate and enforce Title VII against employees failing to grant exemptions to otherwise applicable COVID or other vaccination requirements to employees with sincerely held religous beliefs against vaccination unless the employer proved undue hardship preventing the accommodation.
The lawsuit warns other employers with vaccination requirements to provide accommodations for employees with deeply held religous beliefs against the vaccine unless the employer can prove undue hardship sufficient to excuse the accommodation. The prosecution of the suit against a health care organization subject to the tightest vaccination and other COVID safety mandates under Centers for Disease Control, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Occuoatiinal Safety & Health Administration regulations demonstrates the high burden the EEOC expects employers refusing accommodation to meet. In light of these EEOC CHOA and other enforcement actions, employers should proceed carefully before refusing accommodation. As COVID and other pandemic and epidemic outbreaks continue to threaten workers, patient, customer and community safety, organizations must tred carefully and be prepared to defend the adequacy of their actions regardless of whether choosing to allow or deny accommodation from applicable communicable disease protocols.
For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs
If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”
For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes 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 hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.
Other Helpful Resources & Information
If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer 
slphrbenefitsupdate.com 