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

EEOC Prepares To Broaden “Disability” Definition Under ADA Regulations

September 18, 2009

Proposed regulations modifying existing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rules concerning the conditions that an individual must meet to qualify as having a “disability” for purposes of claiming protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are expected to be published in the Federal Register the week of September 21, 2009.

On September 16, 2009, the EEOC announced that Commissioners had approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Proposed Regulation) which would make several significant changes to the its current regulatory definition of the term “disability” for purposes of the ADA.  The EEOC announced this week that the Proposed Regulation is expected to be published in the Federal Register the week of September 21, 2009.  Interested persons will have 60 days from the publication date of the Proposed Rule to submit comments to the EEOC concerning the Proposed Regulation.

Why The Change?

The proposed changes are intended to respond to amendments enacted under the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which took effect January 1, 2009.   Enacted on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability” in the ADA as well as directed EEOC to amend its existing ADA regulation to reflect the changes made by the ADAAA.

The ADAAA amendments to the ADA definition of “disability” make it easier for certain individuals alleging employment discrimination based on disability to establish disability status under the ADA’s definition of “disability” by overruling various Supreme Court holdings and portions of EEOC’s existing ADA regulations considered by many members of Congress as too narrowly applying the definition of “disability.”  

While 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, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect on January 1, 2009 change the required interpretation of these terms.  Under the ADAAA, “major life activities” now include both 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), as well as major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”). 

In addition to these clarifications, the ADAAA also broadens the reach of the ADA’s definition of “disability” in various other respects.  For instance, the ADAAA:

  • Asserts 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.

As part of the required implementation of its provisions, the ADAAA also mandates that the EEOC revise that portion of its existing regulations defining the term “substantially limits” and “major life activities” to comport to the changes enacted by the ADAAA.  In response to this statutory direction, the Proposed Regulation to be published next week proposes changes both to the ADA regulation itself and to the Interpretive Guidance (also known as the Appendix) that was published at the same time as the original ADA regulation. See 29 C.F.R. section 1630.  The Appendix provides further explanation from the EEOC on how its ADA regulations should be interpreted.

About The New Guidance and Proposed Regulations

In anticipation of the publication of the Proposed Regulation, the EEOC on September 16, 2009 sought to provided a peek into its new post-ADAAA construction of the ADA definition of disability by releasing its “Questions and Answers on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008” Questions and answers on the Notice of Proposed Rulingmaking for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “Q&As”). 

The Q&As and other EEOC statements released this week indicate that the Proposed Regulation will emphasize that the definition of disability — an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity — must be construed broadly. It will provide that that major life activities include “major bodily functions;” that mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and that impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would “substantially limit” major life activities when active. The regulation also will provides a streamlined means through which persons claiming disability may demonstrate a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability.

Required Response

Employers face increasing exposure to disability claims as a result of the ADAAA amendments, new genetic information nondiscrimination rules enacted under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and a heightened emphasis on disabilities discrimination law enforcement by the Obama Administration.  In light of this rising exposure, employers and others covered by the ADA should evaluate their existing practices in light of the Q&As and make adjustments, submit comments regarding the Proposed Regulations or both as part of their efforts to manage their organization’s ADA liability exposure.  Because the ADAAA already is in effect, employers already face the possibility of being called upon to defend their hiring and employment practices under the amended ADAAA definition of disability, even though the EEOC has not issued final guidance.  For this reason, it is important that employers take timely action both to update relevant written policies and procedures, as well as to change hiring and other operational processes, conduct training, implement appropriate oversight and monitoring and take other steps to mitigate these exposures.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to the  Proposed Regulations, the Q&As, or 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 EEOC Prepares To Broaden “Disability” Definition Under ADA Regulations | ADA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, OFCCP, Retaliation, Retirement Plans | 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

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

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

EEOC GIVES EMPLOYERS LIMITED EMPLOYER GUIDANCE ABOUT ADA ISSUES IN SWINE FLU RESPONSE

May 13, 2009

Recent concerns over the H1N1 Swine Flu (swine flu) pandemic and warnings of a possible resurgence of the swine flu pandemic or some other pandemic in the future is forcing many employers to question when concerns that an employee suffers from a contagious disease can justify the employer making inquires about the health of an employee or the exclusion of the employee from the workplace. New guidance set forth in the “U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ADA-Compliant Employer Preparedness For the H1N1 Flu Virus” (Guidance) published by the U.S. Department of Labor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 4, 2009 provides some insights for employers about the EEOC’s perspective on these questions. 

The Guidance details the EEOC’s answers to certain basic questions about when the EEOC views certain workplace preparation strategies for responding to the 2009 flu virus as compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Employers considering updates to their current pandemic and infectious disease response plans are cautioned that in addition to potential ADA exposures, practices for periods after November 21, 2009 also generally must be tailored to comply with new restrictions on employer’s collection of and discrimination based on genetic information based on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA).  Proposed regulations interpreting the employment provisions of GINA published by the EEOC in March 2009 do not specifically address the implications of GINA on employer planning or response to pandemic concerns.

ADA Concerns Apply To Employers  Planning For & Applying Swine Flu Response 

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects applicants and employees from disability discrimination. Among other things, the ADA regulates when and how employers may require a medical examination or request disability-related information from applicants and employees, regardless of whether the individual has a disability.  The Guidance confirms that the EEOC views this requirement as affecting when and how employers may request health information from applicants and employees regarding H1N1 flu virus.  

Effective January 1, 2009, Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) to change the way that the ADA’s statutory definition of the term “disability” historically has been interpreted by certain courts.  The ADAAA amendments generally are intended and expected to make it easier for certain individuals to qualify as disabled under the ADA.  While the Guidance announces that the EEOC intends to revise its ADA regulations to reflect the broader group of persons protected as disabled under the ADAAA amendments, it also indicates that the EEOC does not perceive that the ADAAA changes the actions prohibited by the ADA as they relate to common pandemic planning and response activities.  Consequently, the Guidance states that the EEOC views the  guidance in “Disability-Related Inquiries & Medical Examinations of Employees Under the ADA” published by the EEOC in 2000 and its “Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions & Medical Examinations” published in 1995 as setting forth the governing rules for medical testing, inquires and other pandemic response planning under the ADA.

Under the ADA, an employer’s ability to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations is analyzed in three stages: pre-offer, post-offer, and employment.

  • At the first stage (prior to an offer of employment), the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even if they are related to the job.
  • At the second stage (after an applicant is given a conditional job offer, but before s/he starts work), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, regardless of whether they are related to the job, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same job category.
  • At the third stage (after employment begins), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
  • The ADA requires employers to treat any medical information obtained from a disability-related inquiry or medical examination (including medical information from voluntary health or wellness programs), as well as any medical information voluntarily disclosed by an employee, as a confidential medical record. Employers may share such information only in limited circumstances with supervisors, managers, first aid and safety personnel, and government officials investigating compliance with the ADA.

Employers deviating from these requirements when administering their pandemic planning or response risk disability discrimination liability under the ADA unless they otherwise can defend their action under one of the exceptions to the ADA’s disability discrimination prohibitions.  When making post-offer inquiries or requiring post offer examinations or imposing other conditions for safety reasons, the Guidance and EEOC in unofficial discussions have emphasized the importance of the employer’s ability to demonstrate the job or safety relevance of the medical inquiry or examination based on credible scientific evidence such as the latest scientific evidence available from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Other than emphasizing the importance of acting appropriately in response to credible scientific evidence and pointing to preexisting guidance, the Guidance does not extensively address with specificity the circumstances under which the EEOC will view any particular action taken by an employer as defensible under the safety or other exceptions of the ADA.  Likewise, the Guidance does not discuss in any details the conditions, if any, under which the EEOC would view suffering, a history of suffering or association with or exposure to swine flu as qualifying an individual as disabled or perceived to be disabled for purposes of the ADA.  Consequently, employer must rely on other less specifically tailored guidance for purposes of assessing the defensibility of a proposed action on these grounds.

Planning for Absenteeism Under ADA

When planning for a possible pandemic, employers must be careful about when and how they ask employees about factors, including chronic medical conditions that may cause them to miss work in the event of a pandemic.  According to the Guidance, an employer may survey its workforce to gather personal information needed for pandemic preparation if the employer asks broad questions that are not limited to disability-related inquiries.  An inquiry would not be disability-related if it identified non-medical reasons for absence during a pandemic (e.g., mandatory school closures or curtailed public transportation) on an equal footing with medical reasons (e.g., chronic illnesses that weaken immunity). The Guidance includes a sample of what the EEOC views as ADA-compliant survey that could be given to all employees before a pandemic.

The Guidance also indicates that where appropriate safeguards are applied to comply with the ADA, it also may be appropriate for an employer under certain limited circumstances, to require entering employees to have a medical test post-offer to determine their exposure to the influenza virus.  According to the EEOC, the ADA permits an employer to require entering employees to undergo a job relevant medical examination after making a conditional offer of employment but before the individual starts work, if all entering employees in the same job category must undergo such an examination.  Thus, the Guidance reflects that the requirement by an employer as part of its pandemic influenza preparedness plan that all entering employees in the same job categories undergo the same post offer medical testing for the virus in accordance with recommendations by the WHO and the CDC in response to a new influenza virus may be ADA-compliant.

Infection Control in the Workplace Under the ADA

The Guidance also discusses the EEOC’s perceptions about the ADA implications of employer use of certain infection control practices in the workplace during a pandemic provided that the requirements are applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion consistent with the ADA.  For instance, the Guidance states that employers generally may apply with following infection control practices without implicating the ADA:

  • Require all employees to comply with certain infection control practices, such as regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and tissue usage and disposal without implicating the ADA;
  • May require employees to wear personal protective equipment provided that where an employee with a disability needs a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (e.g., non-latex gloves, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), employer provides these accommodations absent undue hardship;
  • Encourage or require employees to telework as an infection-control strategy, based on timely information from public health authorities about pandemic conditions or offer telework as a possible reasonable accommodation.  

In all cases, of course, the Guidance cautions that employers must not single out employees either to telework or to continue reporting to the workplace on a basis prohibited by the ADA or any of the other federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws.

Impending GINA Rules

 As signed into law, GINA amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 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 to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of  “genetic information” by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, joint labor-management committees, group health plans and insurers and their agents.  GINA’s group health plan restrictions are scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009.  The employment related genetic testing rules of GINA take affect November 21, 2009.  Employers and other covered entities will need to carefully review and timely update their pandemic and other infectious disease response practices as well as their group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies in light of these new federal rules.

Although EEOC has not finalized its implementing regulations for GINA yet, employers should anticipate that GINA will impact their pandemic and other related practices.  The implications of GINA for employers and other entities covered by its provisions because of its broad definition of genetic information. 

Under GINA, “genetic information” is defined to mean 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 final 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 wellness and safety, leave, and other employment and benefit practices, particularly as apparently will reach a broader range of conditions than those currently protected under the disability discrimination prohibitions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  

Depending on the contemplated inquiry or practice, certain inquiries or actions intended for use as part of an employer’s pandemic preparedness or response activities could fall within the scope of GINA’s protections. For this reason, employers also should consider the potential treatment of a proposed pandemic preparation or response activity intended to be applied after GINA takes effect in light of GINA.  Additionally, employers also should consider the risk that information collected under existing or previously applied pandemic or other infectious disease prevention and response activities might qualify for additional protection when GINA takes effect in November, 2009.

Other Resources

Businesses, health care providers, schools, government agencies and others concerned about preparing to cope with pandemic or other infectious disease challenges also may want to review the following resources authored by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer:

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 www.cttlegal.com.

Comments Off on EEOC GIVES EMPLOYERS LIMITED EMPLOYER GUIDANCE ABOUT ADA ISSUES IN SWINE FLU RESPONSE | Absenteeism, ADA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Pandemic, Privacy, Risk Management, Swine Flu, Telecommuting | 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

Mitigating Workplace Fallout of Pandemic Response

May 5, 2009

As the U.S. rushes to try to contain the spread of the swine influenza A (H1N1) virus infection (swine flu), businesses increasingly are facing employee leave requests and other employment and operational disruptions plans caused by school, day care or other closures and other business disruptions resulting from efforts to contain the disease while also working to take appropriate steps to prevent the spread of the disease within their own organizations.

Regardless of how deadly it ultimately proves to be, the pandemic proportion of the swine flu outbreak now ensures that most U.S. businesses will experience some disruption in operations as a result of the epidemic and efforts to contain it.

According to officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, 36 states had reported a total of 236 confirmed cases of swine flu and more cases are expected. That number includes the first U.S. swine flu fatality: a 22-month-old child from Mexico who died of the illness at a Houston, Texas hospital while visiting the United States last week. States currently hardest hit include New York (73 cases), Texas (41 cases), California (30 cases), Delaware (20 cases) and Arizona (17 cases). In the near future, however, CDC officials anticipate confirmed cases in all 50 states.

CDC officials and other experts continue to emphasize that the success of efforts to prevent the unnecessary spread of the disease depends largely on good health habits, limiting exposure to the virus and prompt diagnosis and treatment of afflicted persons. Employers can help reduce the risk that members of their workforce and their families will catch the virus by promoting good health habits and encouraging workers and their families to stay home and seek prompt treatment in the event of an illness. Simultaneously planning for and dealing with absences and other staffing challenges result from school, day care and other closings prevents a greater challenge for many employers, however.

Easy Preventive Safeguards

While the CDC says getting employees and their families to get a flu shot remains the best defense against a flu outbreak, it also says getting employees and family members to consistently practice good health habits like covering a cough and washing hands also is another important key to prevent the spread of germs and prevent the spread of respiratory illnesses like the flu. To help promote health habits within their workforce, many businesses may want to download and circulate to employees and families the free resources published by the CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/habits.htm. These and other resources make clear that Employers should encourage employees and their families to practice good health habits by telling employees and their families to take the following steps:

  • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. When you are sick, keep your distance from others to protect them from getting sick too.
  • Stay home when you are sick to help prevent others from catching your illness. Cover your mouth and nose.
  • Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing. It may prevent those around you from getting sick.
  • Clean your hands to protect yourself from germs.
  • Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth.
  • Germs are often spread when a person touches something that is contaminated with germs and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth.
  • Practice other good health habits. Get plenty of sleep, be physically active, manage your stress, drink plenty of fluids, and eat nutritious food.

Many businesses are promoting these and other conducts that help prevent the spread of disease by sharing educational materials such as the growing range of free materials provided by the CDC and others available at the government sponsored website, http://www.pandemicflu.gov. For instance, business can access and download free copies of the following publications at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/habits.htm:

  • Cover Your Cough
  • Be a Germ Stopper: Healthy Habits Keep You Well
  • Flu Prevention Toolkit: Real People. Real Solutions
  • Stopping the Spread of Germs at Home, Work & School

Dealing With Lost Time & Productivity Challenges

Businesses also should begin preparing backup staffing and production strategies to prepare for disruptions likely to result if a significant outbreak occurs. Whether or not the disease afflicts any of its workers, businesses can anticipate the swine flu outbreak will impact their operations -either as a result of occurrences affecting their own or other businesses or from workflow disruptions resulting from safeguards that the business or other businesses implement to minimize swine flu risks for its workforce or its customers.

For many employers, however, planning for and dealing with requests for time off or other workplace disruptions resulting from pandemic containment efforts presents special challenges. While most employers have well established policies and procedures for providing medical leave to employees during periods of their own or a family member’s illness under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or otherwise, many employers are experiencing difficulty in responding to leave requests of healthy employees necessitated by school or day care closings, suspected exposures, or other pandemic response disruptions.

Certainly, whether or not legally mandated, the CDC and other official advisories make clear that sick employees should not be in the workplace. Employers of course must provide medical leave as required by the FMLA or other similar state laws as well as any contractually agreed to leave. To better insulate their workforce against potential exposure to the virus, however, many employers also may wish consider temporarily modifying existing leave or other work policies with an eye to better defending their workforce against a major outbreak. In this respect, employers need to consider both how to respond to the present wave of the virus and to plan for the possible need to respond to another potentially stronger outbreak of the swine flu virus that the CDC and other experts caution likely may arise in the Fall or Winter.

As part of their efforts to insulate their workplaces against exposure to the virus, employers generally should discourage workers from coming to work if they or a family member are experiencing symptoms or have been exposed to the virus. For this reason, businesses generally evaluate workplace policies or practices that may pressure or encourage employees with swine flu or any other contagious disease to report to work. Employers should consider whether the potential risks make advisable adjustments to their current attendance, telecommuting, leave and paid time off and other policies.

In light of the current situation, many businesses may want to consider temporarily adjust their leave, telecommuting and other policies in light of the impending health risk. For instance, recognizing that the decision to close a school or child care facility in response to a known or suspected infection seeks to minimize the spread of the disease through exposure to other then undiagnosed cases, businesses generally should think twice about allowing employees to bring these potentially exposed children into the workplace. Instead, employers may wish to consider being more flexible in allowing employees to work from home or take leave to care for children whose schools or child care facilities are closed due to concerns about possible exposure to reduce the risk of creating unnecessary exposure in their workplace.

To help minimize financial pressures on workers to report to work when they may be ill or exposed to the virus, many employers also may want to consider providing or offering short-term disability insurance, expanding the availability of paid or unpaid leave or both.

Regardless of the specific choices a particular business makes, businesses need to take appropriate steps to document, implement, and communicate their decisions. If considering allowing or requiring employees to work from home, employers need to implement appropriate safeguards to monitor and manage employee performance, and to protect the employer’s ability to comply with applicable wage and hour, worker’s compensation, safety, privacy and other legal and operational requirements. They also should review and update family and medical leave act and other sick leave policies, group health plan medical coverage continuation rules and notices and other associated policies and plans for compliance with existing regulatory requirements, which have been subject to a range of statutory and regulatory amendments in recent years.

If considering allowing or requiring employees to work from home, for instance, employers need to implement appropriate safeguards to monitor and manage employee performance, and to protect the employer’s ability to comply with applicable wage and hour, worker’s compensation, safety, privacy and other legal and operational requirements. They also should review and update family and medical leave act and other sick leave policies, group health plan medical coverage continuation rules and notices and other associated policies and plans for compliance with existing regulatory requirements, which have been subject to a range of statutory and regulatory amendments in recent years.

In light of the growing responsibilities and exposures of business to medical privacy and disability liabilities associated with knowledge, collection, protection and use of information about the health and medical conditions of workers and their families, businesses also should review and update their procedures regarding the use, collection, disclosure, and protection of this and other sensitive information. Businesses, health care providers, schools, government agencies and others concerned about preparing to cope with pandemic or other infectious disease challenges also may want to review the publication “Planning for the Pandemic” authored by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer available at http://www.cynthiastamer.com/documents/speeches/20070530%20Pan%20Flu%20Workplace%20Privacy%20Issues%20Final%20Merged.pdf. Schools, health care organizations, restaurants and other businesses whose operations involve significant interaction with the public also may need to take special precautions. These and other businesses may want to consult the special resources posted at http://www.pandemicflu.gov/health/index.html.

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. Ms. Stamer in particular has worked extensively with health care providers, government officials, and businesses to plan for and deal with pandemic and other absence, disease management and disaster preparedness concerns. 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.

Comments Off on Mitigating Workplace Fallout of Pandemic Response | Absenteeism, COBRA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Pandemic, Privacy, Swine Flu, Telecommuting, Wellness | 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 »