Emploeyrs |

Konica Minolta Suit Warns Employers To Carefully Manage Separation and Severance Program Design and Administration

November 10, 2026

An ongoing class action lawsuit against Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. alerts employers offering severance or separation pay to carefully review the design, documentation, administration, and application of their severance and separation pay practices to avoid getting nailed with unexpected liabilities and litigation and enforcement costs. Knowing and properly managing these arrangements is particularly critical for employers contemplating individual terminations, job restructurings, reductions in force, relocations, mergers, acquisitions, and other workforce or business restructuring that likely to trigger job terminations or demotions.

Cezus v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00792 (D.N.J.), is an example of a multitude of cases that demonstrate that undocumented, poorly drafted or inconsistently administered severance arrangements can expose employers and their leaders responsible for administering these programs to costly litigation and potentially significant benefit liabilities.

The litigation also highlights an often-overlooked compliance concern: Employer severance and separation pay practices and arrangements generally constitute employee welfare benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) unless designed and administered to qualify as exempt. See ERISA § 3(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)⁠; 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(b)⁠ (addressing severance pay arrangements treated as employee welfare benefit plans). These practices and risks may arise from oral promises or reassurances made to groups of employees; a pattern of paying separation or severance to groups of terminated employees; commitments made in employee handbooks or policies; employment or other agreements with various employees; retention, merger or acquisition or other business transaction agreements; and various other actions. Programs falling under ERISA benefit from preemption of state law mandates and damages but must comply with ERISA’s plan document, fiduciary duty, claims and appeals, reporting and disclosure and other requirements. Employers establishing these arrangements should use care to understand the character of their separation pay arrangements and to document and arrange for their use and administration to manage the applicable compliance responsibilities and legal risks.

When ERISA applies, employers and plan administrators must comply with applicable plan documentation, disclosure, fiduciary responsibility, benefit claims and appeals, and other ERISA requirements. ERISA will treat sponsoring employer, or leaders responsible for interpreting and administering these arrangements as fiduciaries required to carry out these responsibilities in accordance with ERISA’s prudence, exclusive benefit and other fiduciary , claims and appeals

These obligations can apply even when an employer considers its severance arrangement merely an internal human resources policy.

Konica Minolta Litigation Challenges Denial of Severance Following Office Relocation

In Cezus v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00792 (D.N.J.), former employees challenged the denial of severance benefits following Konica Minolta’s decision to relocate positions from Windsor, Connecticut, to Ramsey, New Jersey.

According to the employees, the employer structured the relocation in a manner designed to accomplish a substantial workforce reduction without paying severance benefits to employees unwilling or unable to relocate.

Employees whose positions were transferred were offered continued employment at the New Jersey location. Those who declined the transfer were terminated without severance based on a plan provision excluding employees who refused offers of other employment within the company.

The employees contend that the relocation was, in substance, a reduction in force triggering severance eligibility under the governing plan. Konica Minolta disputes those allegations and maintains that the benefits were properly denied under the plan’s terms.

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a class of employees challenging the denial of benefits. The district court concluded that common questions concerning the relocation, the employer’s application of the severance plan, and the characterization of the employment terminations supported classwide adjudication.

On November 6, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed to consider Konica Minolta’s interlocutory appeal challenging class certification.

The Third Circuit’s decision to hear the appeal does not resolve the merits of the employees’ claims or establish that Konica Minolta improperly denied benefits. Nevertheless, the litigation illustrates the substantial exposure employers can face when the design or administration of severance arrangements produces disputes involving a group of similarly situated employees including the substantial likelihood of class action litigation, Employee Benefit Security Administration investigation or enforcement, or both.

ERISA Often Regulates Severance, Separation, Termination or Other Arrangements Paying Cash Upon Employment Termination

A critical starting point for employers is recognizing that ERISA applies to many severance, separation pay and other arrangements through which employers pay employees cash or other benefits upon termination whether or not the employer intended to establish a plan subject to ERISA when it established the arrangement.

The applicability of ERISA to a termination pay arrangement has several material consequences for these arrangements, the employers that establish them, and the employers or company officials responsible for their administration. For instance, when a severance arrangement is an ERISA plan, the employer must ensure that the arrangement is documented in accordance with ERISA’s plan document requirements, communicated through a summary plan description, and administered in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility, claims and appeals and other requirements. If the arrangement subject to ERISA is considered a “pension” versus “welfare” plan, ERISA’s coverage, vesting and funding rules also may apply. Also, where ERISA applies the written plan document, not the separation agreement handed to the departing employee, generally determines what the employer when the benefits are paid, what an employee must be required to agree to or d before qualifying to receive the payments; and the enforceability of conditions included in the separation agreement. Employers that fail to write release and covenant conditions into the plan itself risk being unable to enforce them if these terms are not properly documented. Employers must also avoid separation terms that federal or state law prohibits, some of which create independent liability rather than merely failing to bind the employee. At the same time, because ERISA generally preempts state laws regulating employee benefit plans, coverage by ERISA often insulates the employer and those responsible for administering these programs from state employment law or other rules that restricting the terms of these arrangements, exemplary damage awards that state employment, contractual or other laws often authorize for disputes arising from these arrangements, and state law restrictions that otherwise would restrict waivers, releases or other terms allowed under ERISA but prohibited by state law.

Arrangements Providing Payments For Employment Termination Or Unemployment Presumptively Regulated As ERISA Plans

ERISA generally regulates arrangements that defer or pay benefits to termination of employment or beyond as either pension or welfare benefit plans.

ERISA Section 3(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)⁠, includes certain plans, funds and other arrangements providing benefits in the event of unemployment within the definition of an employee welfare benefit plan. However, certain arrangements may be regulated under the more burdensome requirements ERISA applies to pension plans. Since pension plans are subject to additional requirements, it is important for an employer to know both if ERISA applies to the arrangement and if so, to understand if the severance arrangement is properly classified as a welfare versus a pension plan for ERISA purposes.

Courts have read ERISA’s definition of an “employee benefit plan” broadly enough to reach most employer promises to pay severance or termination pay. Consequently, employers should not assume that an arrangement escapes ERISA merely because the employer doesn’t consider or label it an ERISA plan; the commitment to provide the termination payment or other benefit upon separation is made in an employment agreement, written or unwritten severance policy, business transaction document, separation agreement, executive benefit, or payroll practice.

Arrangements Subject To ERISA

The Second Circuit has observed that the employee benefit plan definition “has been held to apply to most . . . employer undertakings or obligations to pay severance benefits.” Okun v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 793 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 1996)). Arrangements found to be plans include the following:

Written severance policies. In Okun, a long-standing written policy was a plan where, among other features, employees with fifteen years of service were entitled to an automatic review of their severance amount by the medical center’s president.
Executive packages tied to an acquisition. Bogue v. Ampex Corp., 976 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1992), involved severance for ten top executives that required the administrator to make discretionary determinations about whether post-acquisition employment was substantially equivalent.
Combined termination and change-in-control plans. In Petersen v. E.F. Johnson Co., 366 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 2004), a plan paying benefits on termination without cause, including termination as a result of a change in control, required case-by-case eligibility review.
Promises to a single employee. Williams v. Wright, 927 F.2d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir. 1991), held that “a plan covering only a single employee, where all other requirements are met, is covered by ERISA,” and that payment from general assets does not defeat plan status. See also Biggers v. Wittek Indus., Inc., 4 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 1993).
State-mandated severance. Simas v. Quaker Fabric Corp., 6 F.3d 849 (1st Cir. 1993), held ERISA preempted Massachusetts’ “tin parachute” statute, which required graduated severance for employees terminated around a change in control.

However, federal precedent recognizes certain payments made upon termination fall outside ERISA. For instance, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne⁠, 482 U.S. 1 (1987)⁠, for example, a one-time payment obligation that does not require an ongoing administrative scheme does not necessarily constitute an ERISA plan.

Fort Halifax’s one-time, plant-closing payment, Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987), is not the only severance-type obligation courts have placed outside ERISA § 3(1). The test is whether the employer’s undertaking requires an ongoing administrative scheme, not what the payment is called. Courts have found no plan where an individually negotiated employment contract called for severance computed mechanically on termination, with no ongoing discretionary analysis required, Delaye v. Agripac, Inc., 39 F.3d 235 (9th Cir. 1994). The same is true of a “golden parachute” triggered by a single change-in-control event, whether adopted for a group of senior executives, Fontenot v. NL Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1992), or negotiated with one executive, Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 21 F.3d 254 (8th Cir. 1994). Courts have reached the same result for a one-time “stay” bonus and severance payment tied to a facility closing, Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1997). The same reasoning supports treating a negotiated settlement agreement as a contract rather than a plan where it pays a fixed sum to resolve disputed liabilities between the employer and a particular employee. Such an agreement compromises existing claims rather than establishing a program to provide benefits on account of unemployment.

Payments made because of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retaining Act (“WARN Act”) stand on similar footing. The Department of Labor has stated that neither the Act nor the regulations recognize the concept of pay in lieu of notice, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Employer’s Guide to Advance Notice of Closings and Layoffs. An employer that pays back pay and benefits for the notice shortfall is satisfying or reducing its statutory liability under 29 U.S.C. § 2104 rather than maintaining a benefit program, much like the statutorily mandated plant-closing payment in Fort Halifax. Where affected employees instead remain on payroll through the notice period, their continued pay fits within the payroll-practice exclusion in 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(b), which Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989), applied to vacation pay. These outcomes depend on the arrangement’s actual features. An employer that folds WARN-related or settlement payments into a broader severance program with eligibility discretion, case-by-case determinations, or payments over an extended period risks creating the very ongoing administrative scheme that triggers ERISA coverage, as in Simas v. Quaker Fabric Corp., 6 F.3d 849 (1st Cir. 1993).

Equally important to knowing if ERISA applies to an arrangement is knowing whether ERISA considers an arrangement to pay an employee upon unemployment or termination of employment a “welfare benefit plan” or a “pension plan.” The vast majority of severance arrangements maintained by employers qualify as welfare benefit plans under the three safe-harbor criteria adopted by the Department of Labor for determining whether a severance arrangement is regulated by ERISA as a welfare benefit plans in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(B) and 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(b), as summarized in Advisory Opinion 1995-28A:

the severance payments are not contingent, directly or indirectly, on the employee’s retiring;
the total payments do not exceed the equivalent of twice the employee’s annual compensation during the year immediately preceding termination of service; and
all payments are completed within 24 months after termination of service or, for an employee terminated in a limited program of terminations, within the later of 24 months after termination or 24 months after the employee reaches normal retirement age.

Employers applying these criteria should keep in mind that the two-times measure is not limited to final base pay. “Annual compensation” means the total of all compensation, including wages, salary, and any other benefit of monetary value, whether paid in cash or otherwise, for the year before termination. The Department has also taken the position that benefits must be paid within 24 months of the event giving the employee the right to a benefit, Advisory Opinion 1992-03A. An arrangement that meets all three criteria is treated as a welfare plan, provided it is a “plan” at all under Fort Halifax. As a welfare plan, it is not subject to Parts 2 and 3 of Title I (participation, vesting, and funding) but remains subject to Parts 1, 4, and 5 (reporting and disclosure, fiduciary responsibility, and administration and enforcement), Advisory Opinion 1981-55A. Failing any criterion, including the retirement-contingency test, removes the arrangement from the welfare benefit plan safe harbor, Advisory Opinion 1981-08A, but does not automatically make it a pension plan. The Department has noted that the regulation’s preamble does not exclude the possibility that an arrangement outside the criteria may still avoid pension-plan status, Advisory Opinion 1999-01A. Such an arrangement must be analyzed under ERISA § 3(2)(A), which asks whether it provides retirement income or results in a deferral of income to termination of employment or beyond. A pension-plan finding would bring vesting, funding, and other requirements that severance programs are rarely designed to meet. Arrangements that exceed two times annual compensation, extend payments beyond 24 months, or favor retirement-eligible employees, such as some executive and change-in-control packages, warrant particular review.

Since whether a particular severance arrangement is governed by ERISA and where ERISA applies, the resulting consequences vary depending on whether the arrangement is a welfare benefit plan or a pension plan, depends on its design, operation, and the applicable legal standards and the consequences of these classifications materially affect the responsibilities of the adopting employer and the arrangement itself, employers generally should obtain advice from legal counsel with relevant ERISA experience about the applicability of ERISA and its implications before making and when administering these pay upon termination or unemployment arrangements.

ERISA Requires Written Plan Document and More

Coverage of a severance arrangement has material consequences for the adopting employer and those that administer the arrangement extending well beyond merely determining who is eligible and how much severance an employee should receive. Among other things, sponsors and administrators of ERISA-covered severance arrangements generally must address the following requirements.

Written Plan Documents and Clear Eligibility Provisions

ERISA Section 402, 29 U.S.C. § 1102⁠, requires employee benefit plans to be established and maintained pursuant to written plan documents that among other requirements, must identify the named fiduciary or a procedure for identifying fiduciaries, provide procedures for amendment, and specify the basis on which payments are made.

For severance plans, carefully drafted plan documents should address eligibility, covered termination events, reductions in force, relocations, job elimination, voluntary departures, offers of alternative employment, exclusions, benefit formulas, release of claims and other payment conditions, and amendment or termination rights.

Ambiguous provisions can invite disputes over whether a particular employee conduct or misconduct, restructuring, reassignment, relocation or other circumstance triggers severance eligibility or ineligibility. Similarly, plan documentation should be clear regarding if and when health or other employee benefits, fringe benefits or other perks of employment will or will not continue during periods for which severance pay is provided.

For employers desiring to condition payment of benefits on the employee releasing claims, careful crafting of the plan to clearly define the waiver requirements and the waiver terms itself also is critical to ensure compliance with relevant ERISA, Older Worker Benefit Protection Act and other requirements to promote enforceability as intended by the sponsoring employer and avoid creating age discrimination or other unintended liability risks.

Fiduciary Responsibilities and Prudent Plan Administration

Where an arrangement is regulated by ERISA, ERISA, rather than state employment or other law generally will govern its administration.

ERISA Section 404, 29 U.S.C. § 1104⁠, generally requires plan fiduciaries to act prudently, loyally, and in accordance with governing plan documents insofar as those documents are consistent with ERISA.

Employers should distinguish between business or settlor decisions concerning whether to establish, amend, or terminate a severance plan and fiduciary decisions concerning the administration of an existing ERISA plan.

While an employer generally may make legitimate business decisions concerning workforce restructuring, individuals exercising discretionary authority over plan administration or benefit determinations may be acting as ERISA fiduciaries.

Consequently, administrators should not treat the employer’s preferred business outcome as a substitute for a faithful interpretation and application of the plan’s terms. Employers should specifically appoint specified individuals to serve as the responsibility for administering severance arrangements in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility and other requirements. Termination decisions made by the employer should be made separately from decisions regarding severance benefit eligibility made by officials appointed to serve as the fiduciaries responsible for administering the severance plan. Decisions made by the severance plan fiduciaries must be made prudently in accordance with the terms of the plan terms and for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries.

Benefit Claims and Appeals Procedures

ERISA Section 503, 29 U.S.C. § 1133⁠, and the Department of Labor’s claims procedure regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1⁠, impose requirements for processing claims for benefits under covered plans.

These generally include procedures for making benefit claims, timely and adequate notices of adverse benefit determinations, disclosure of the specific reasons and relevant plan provisions supporting denials, and a reasonable opportunity for full and fair review.

The employer or individual or committee named as the fiduciary responsible for administering a severance plan that denies severance benefits without following the applicable claims and appeals requirements can create additional litigation exposure and potentially undermine otherwise available defenses.

Summary Plan Descriptions, Disclosures, and Reporting

ERISA Sections 102 and 104, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1022⁠ and 1024⁠, generally require covered plans to provide appropriate participant disclosures, including summary plan descriptions and summaries of material modifications when applicable.

Employers should also determine whether annual Form 5500 reporting or an applicable exemption applies to their severance plans.

Plan documentation, participant communications, and actual administrative practices should be coordinated to avoid conflicting descriptions of eligibility and benefits.

Enforcement, Benefit Claims, and Fiduciary Liability

ERISA Section 502, 29 U.S.C. § 1132⁠, provides civil enforcement mechanisms that may permit eligible participants and beneficiaries to pursue unpaid benefits, enforce plan rights, or seek other appropriate relief.

Depending on the facts and legal basis of the claim, litigation can also involve requests for equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, statutory penalties for certain disclosure failures, and remedies for fiduciary breaches.

The potential for claims involving numerous employees makes uniform plan interpretation and careful administration especially important.

Employers and Business Leaders May Pay High Cost For Bungled Responsibilities

Bungled severance arrangement design, documentation or administration can be costly for employers and the business leaders responsible for the design and administration of these programs.

Along with from compromising the ability of employers to enforce intended limitations on payments, enforce releases or other conditions of the program, sponsoring employers and their leaders responsible for administering these arrangements risk:

Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration investigations and enforcement actions for wrongful denial of benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and other ERISA breaches seeking damages, penalties and enforcement costs; and
Class action and other lawsuits by employees seeking damages plus attorneys’ fees and other enforcement costs for breaches of ERISA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or other laws.

Business leaders involved in or with discretionary authority over the design or administration of these programs also could be at risk for personal liability where the mishandled responsibilities are found to constitute fiduciary breaches.

Practical Steps Employers Should Take Now

Employers and individuals within their organizations charged with administering these arrangements concerned about positioning their organization to maximize their companies’ flexibility to make workforce changes without unanticipated separation pay liabilities and costs should reassess their severance and separation pay practices before the next workforce action or change. Recommended actions include:

Inventory existing arrangements. Identify formal severance plans, executive separation arrangements, employee handbook promises, change-in-control programs, and established severance practices. Determine which arrangements are governed by ERISA and which may be subject to other legal requirements.
Review plan drafting. Confirm that eligibility, exclusions, covered terminations, alternative employment offers, relocation requirements, and benefit formulas are clearly defined and reflect intended business practices.
Evaluate ERISA compliance. For covered plans, confirm that written plan documents, fiduciary designations, summary plan descriptions, claims and appeals procedures, and applicable reporting obligations are optimally addressed. To the extent ERISA compliance is deficient or suboptimal, prompt corrective action should be taken.
Review restructuring decisions against existing plan terms. Before implementing layoffs, relocations, consolidations, or position eliminations, determine whether the proposed actions may trigger severance obligations. Avoid relying solely on labels such as “voluntary resignation” or “transfer refusal” without examining the actual facts and governing provisions.
Train decision-makers and document determinations. Ensure human resources personnel, management, and plan fiduciaries understand their respective roles and responsibilities. Maintain contemporaneous records supporting eligibility determinations, benefit calculations, and claim decisions.
Coordinate severance arrangements with other applicable laws. Depending on the circumstances, severance arrangements may also implicate the WARN Act, the health benefit coverage continuation rules of the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), ERISA and federal tax laws regarding pension and profit sharing plan complete or partial terminations, securities, tax and other considerations regarding equity based pay, federal and state discrimination laws, wage payment requirements, tax rules, and legal requirements governing releases of employment claims and other requirements.

The Bottom Line

Severance and separation pay arrangements are not merely discretionary human resources practices. They may create enforceable benefit obligations and trigger significant ERISA and other compliance responsibilities.

The Konica Minolta litigation demonstrates how a dispute concerning the characterization of a workforce restructuring and the application of a severance plan exclusion can develop into potentially expensive class action litigation.

Employers should proactively review their severance plan documents and practices, ensure that benefit determinations are made in accordance with governing terms, and confirm that ERISA-covered programs comply with applicable fiduciary, claims, appeals, disclosure, and other requirements.

Careful drafting before a restructuring and disciplined administration when employment ends can significantly reduce the risk of costly disputes over severance eligibility.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising and representing employers on these and other workforce, compensation and benefit concerns.

Well-known for her knowledge, training and publications on these concerns, Ms. Stamer also is nationally recognized for her extensive publications, training and advocacy on health and other employee benefits matters,

For more information about securing a copy of the recording, attending the upcoming or other briefings, or other health or other employee benefits, workforce, health care or other training, resources, or services, see http://www.solutionslawyer.com orcontact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has decades of experience advising and assisting employers on the design, audit, enforcement and defense of employment, severance and other employee benefits, and other workforce, employee benefits, and operational risk management and compliance.

An American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorney and advisor board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization peer celebrated as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in ERISA & Employee Benefits Law, Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business and Commercial Law, Ms. Stamer has decades of experience advising and defending employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries, debtors in possession, bankruptcy trustees and receivers, and others about employment termination, severance pay, settlement negotiations and other aspects of planning, implementing and defending single or mass employment terminations and other workforce, employee benefit and business concerns in a wide range of contexts Her experience includes advising employers, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and others about the planning, design, documentation, interpretation, administration and defense of these and other employment, employee benefit and other practices, as well as conducting audits and investigations, designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow.

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

Along with these activities, Ms. Stamer also has earned national recognition for her authorship of thousands of highly regarded works, presentations as a knowledgeable speaker, testimony and other input of regulators and legislators, and media interviews on health and other benefits, human resources and other workforce, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press™

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

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

Leave a Comment » | adea, Age Discrimination, Bankruptcy, board of directors, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Discrimination, EBSA, EEOC, EEOC, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, enforcement, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, Non-Compete, Preemption, Releases, Reporting & Disclosure, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Severance, Severance pay, Severance plan, Workforce | Tagged: business, Employment Termination, job-termination, Reduction in Force, Reengineering, separation-pay | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Electronic Injury Reporting Requirements Changing January 1, 2024; Confirm Your Organization’s Status and Responsibilities Under New Rules

July 26, 2023

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) is changing its requirements for reporting occupational injury data electronically. Under OSHA’s new OSHA Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses Final Rule (“New Electronic Reporting Rule”) published July 21, 2023. OSHA is updating both its electronic reporting requirements and the Appendix used to determine the employers required to electronically report OSHA injury data. Consequently, employers will need to reevaluate their status for purposes of determining if the electronic reporting requirements apply as well as what electronic filing responsibilities, if any, apply to their organizations.

OSHA Injury Tracking & Electronic Reporting Through December 31, 2023

Currently, 29 CFR part 1904 (“Basic Tracking Rule”) requires employers with more than 10 employees in most industries to keep records of occupational injuries and illnesses at their establishments using three forms or their equivalent:

OSHA Form 300, the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, which includes information about the employee’s name, job title, date of the injury or illness, where the injury or illness occurred, description of the injury or illness (e.g., body part affected), and the outcome of the injury or illness (e.g., death, days away from work, job transfer or restriction);
OSHA Form 301, the Injury and Illness Incident Report, which includes the employee’s name and address, date of birth, date hired, and gender and the name and address of the health care professional that treated the employee, as well as more detailed information about where and how the injury or illness occurred; and
OSHA Form 300A, the Annual Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, containing general information about an employer’s workplace, such as the average number of employees and total number of hours worked by all employees during the calendar year. It does not contain information about individual employees. Employers are required to prepare this form at the end of each year and post the form in a visible location in the workplace from February 1 to April 30 of the year following the year covered by the form.

In addition to the Basic Tracking Rule, Section 1904.41 of the OSHA regulations currently requires electronic reporting of certain injury and illness data to OSHA by two groups once a year:

Establishments with 250 or more employees in industries required to routinely keep OSHA injury and illness records must electronically submit information from the Form 300A summary to OSHA once a year; and
Establishments with 20-249 employees in industries listed on appendix A of part 1904 subpart E to the regulation (“high hazard employers”) must electronically submit information from their Form 300A summary to OSHA once a year.

The New OSHA Electronic Reporting Rule modifies these electronic reporting requirements beginning January 1, 2024 while leaving the Basic Tracking Rule unchanged.

New OSHA Electronic Reporting Rules After December 31, 2023

Beginning in January, 2024, the New Electronic Reporting Rule will require three groups of establishments to electronically submit information from their injury and illness recordkeeping forms to OSHA once a year as follows:

High hazard employer establishments with 20-249 employees will continue to be required to electronically submit information from their Form 300A annual summary to OSHA once a year; and
Establishments with 250 or more employees in industries that are required to routinely keep OSHA injury and illness records will continue to be required to electronically submit information from the Form 300A to OSHA once a year; and
High hazard employers will be newly required to electronically submit information from their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once a year.

As OSHA will update the NAICS codes in appendix A to subpart E used to determine if an employer is a high hazard employer in connection with its implementation of these new rules, employers will need to reevaluate whether their organizations are considered high hazard employers under the updated appendix A to determine what electronic reporting obligations, if any, their organization must meet. Employers required to report electronically should expect that in addition to other required information, OSHA now will require organizations to identify their organization by name when filing their electronic reports and that OSHA plans to report collected establishment-specific, case-specific injury and illness information online with worker identifying and certain other information suppressed. OSHA believes that the expanded public access to establishment-specific, case-specific injury and illness data will promote workplace safety by helping OSHA with enforcement and allow employers, employees, potential employees, employee representatives, customers, potential customers, researchers, and the general public to make more informed decisions about workplace safety and health at a given establishment.

To avoid exposure for violating applicable OSHA electronic reporting or other requirements, all employers should evaluate their status under the New Electronic Reporting Rule and if applicable, begin preparing to comply with any applicable data collection and reporting requirements.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

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

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government, and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability, and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about the preparation of workforce, health care, and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day-to-day operations, through times of crisis or change, and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.

Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress, and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community, and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension, and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration, and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training, and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls, and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on OSHA Electronic Injury Reporting Requirements Changing January 1, 2024; Confirm Your Organization’s Status and Responsibilities Under New Rules | compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, enforcement, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, Management, OSHA, Whistleblower | Tagged: Electronic Reporting, Employer, OSHA, Recordkeeping, Safety, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Risk Out-Of-State Lawsuits, Regulation From Registering In Consent To Jurisdiction States and Contractual Consents To Jurisdiction

July 17, 2023

Out-of-state employers, insurers, employee benefit plan vendors, and other businesses registered to do business in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, or another state that requires that out-of-state businesses consent to jurisdiction as a condition of their registration to do business in the state face a heightened risk of getting hauled into court in the consent to jurisdiction state following last month’s Supreme Court decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 600 U. S. ____ (2023) even if none of the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place in that state.

The Mallory ruling arose from a state lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court seeking damages by Robert Mallory (“Mallory”) to recover damages for cancer the argued was caused by the negligence of his former employer, Norfolk Southern Railroad (“Norfolk”) pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act workers’ compensation scheme that permits railroad employees to sue for injuries caused by employer negligence. Mallory filed the suit in Pennsylvania, a jurisdiction with no real connection to the claims but noted for its favorability to plaintiffs even though he never worked for Norfolk in Pennsylvania. Mallory only worked for Norfolk in Ohio and Virginia, was a Virginia resident at the time of the suit, and only briefly lived in Pennsylvania after leaving Norfolk’s employment before returning to live in Virginia. Given the lack of connection of Pennsylvania to the parties and events giving rise to the claim, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern moved for the dismissal of the Pennsylvania lawsuit for lack of the requisite “substantial minimum contacts” generally required to support personal jurisdiction.

While courts generally recognize and enforce contractual agreements by a party to consent to jurisdiction, mere registration of an out-of-state business to do business in a state historically has not been recognized as creating the necessary “substantial minimum contacts” that the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution generally requires exist to provide the general personal jurisdiction that must exist for a state court to possess jurisdiction to decide a lawsuit over the out-of-state business under the Supreme Court precedent first articulated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945)

Because Pennsylvania is one of five states that currently requires all out-of-state businesses registering to do business in the State to consent to be sued in the state as a condition of registration, however, Mallory argued and the Supreme Court agreed in Mallory that Norfolk waived its ability to object to personal jurisdiction when it registered to do business in the Commonwealth.

In Mallory, the Supreme Court Majority ruled that any corporation registered to do business in a state which requires out-of-state businesses to consent to general personal jurisdiction waives its right to assert a Due Process challenge to jurisdiction in that state. Accordingly, businesses registering to do business in a consent-to-jurisdiction registration state should anticipate that their mere registration with the state likely subjects the business to the jurisdiction of courts in that state even if the business has not entered into a contractual agreement to submit to that state’s jurisdiction or otherwise engage in other actions establishing the required substantial minimum contacts to satisfy the International Shoe Due Process standards even if none of the events underlying the lawsuit took place in that state.

Given the Supreme Court’s Mallory decision, businesses should take into account the potential risks of being subjected to out-of-state litigation and regulation anytime the business expands operations into, registers to do business as an out-of-state business or signs an agreement consenting to jurisdiction into a state other than their primary place of business. As evidenced by Mallory, businesses generally should consider and take steps to manage the risks of allowing the creation of jurisdiction against their business in states other than the primary location in which the business operates. Businesses subject to jurisdiction in a state generally become subject to laws, regulations, and lawsuits in that state. Aside from added obligations and costs associated with being subject to the laws of another state and conducting litigation in an unfamiliar state, businesses subject to the jurisdiction of laws in courts in multiple states open the door for opposing parties to strengthen their position by foreign shopping. Like Mallory, disgruntled current or former employees, plan members, or other opposing parties in disputes may choose to file their lawsuit in the state with the laws, rules, or precedent most favorable to their position even where the dispute does not arise out of events occurring in the chosen state. Along with assessing when their organization may be subject to liability in other states, businesses should review their insurance coverage and applications to ensure that their insurance and other risk management arrangements take into account the added risks and liabilities that could arise from the additional state law jurisdiction. Consequently, businesses choosing to operate, to register to do business in a consent-to-jurisdiction state, or contractually to agree to submit to jurisdiction in any states should be prepared for the possibility that their organization could subject themselves to regulations, lawsuits, investigations and enforcement actions in that state.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Businesses Risk Out-Of-State Lawsuits, Regulation From Registering In Consent To Jurisdiction States and Contractual Consents To Jurisdiction | Age Discrimination, Antitrust, board of directors, Brokers, child labor, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug Testing, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Termination, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family Leave, FLSA, FMLA, Fringe Benefits, health benefit, health insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Identity Theft, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, LBGT, Leave, Management, noncompete, occupational safety, OSHA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Tagged: Abortion, civil rights, Contraception, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Plans, Insurance, LBGT, Reproductive Rights, Speach, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Marijuanna Pardons Create Potential Employer Headaches

March 5, 2023

Employers whose policies disqualify applicants from employment based on past Marijuanna convictions need to prepare to respond to applicants presenting certificates of pardon of their prior federal conviction of simple Marijuanna conviction received under President Biden’s October 6, 2023 Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession.

Biden Marijuanna Pardons

The Proclamation provided a blanket pardon for all prior federal and D.C. (but not state) offenses of simple possession of marijuana.

Those who were pardoned on October 6, 2022, are eligible for a certificate of pardon. Consistent with the proclamation, to be eligible for a certificate, an applicant must have been charged or convicted of simple possession of marijuana in either a federal court or D.C. Superior Court, and the applicant must have been lawfully within the United States at the time of the offense. Similarly, an individual must have been a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident on October 6, 2022. Those convicted of state marijuana offenses do not qualify for the pardon.

On March 3, 2023, the Justice Department announced the application process for issuing certificates of the pardons to pardoned individuals. This process allows pardoned individuals to get prof of their pardons to present to employers and others. Consequently health care and other businesses should prepare to respond to applicants presenting these certificates.

When he made the pardon proclamation, President Biden directed the Justice Department to develop a process for individuals to receive their certificate of pardon. On March 3, 2023, the Justice Department issued an application for eligible individuals to receive certificate of proof that they were pardoned under the Oct. 6, 2022, proclamation by President Biden.

The online application available on the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s website: Application for Certificate of Pardon allows eligible persons to submit documentation to the Office of the Pardon Attorney and receive a certificate indicating the person was pardoned on October 6, 2022, for simple possession of marijuana.

President Biden said when making his proclamation he intended the pardons to “help relieve the consequences arising from these convictions.” The President’s pardon, effective Oct. 6, 2022, may assist pardoned persons by removing civil or legal disabilities such as restrictions on the right to vote, to hold office or to sit on a jury that are imposed because of the pardoned conviction. Proofs of pardon also may help those pardoned to obtain licenses, bonding or employment.

Potential Employer Challenges

The pardons are likely to create concerns for health care and other employers who currently disqualify applicants from eligibility for employment based on drug related criminal conditions where the employer remains subject to statutory, regulatory, contractual or other requirements prohibiting employment of workers with prior or current history of drug offenses or use.

As a starting point, employers should carefully review their own existing policies as well as any statutory, regulatory contractual requirements applicable to their workforce to assess the implications of the pardons on the employment eligibility of a pardoned worker. Ambiguities are likely to arise under many policies, particularly where a hugyirunof drug use or possession is disqualifying without a requirement of a conviction.

Employers contemplating continuing to disqualify pardoned applicants for safety or other reasons probably should seek the advice of legal counsel. Some pardoned applicants might argue an employer’s reliance on a pardoned criminal drug conviction constitutes prohibited discrimination based on a history of prior drug dependence that violates the Americans With Disabilities Act or other discrimination laws. Statements made by President Biden and others within the Administration suggest the Equal Employmrnt Opportunity omission might support these or similar arguments in furtherance of promotion if President Biden’s policy of facilitating opportunities for employment for individuals recovering from substance abuse.

Employers also may struggle with equity questions raised by the pardoning of federal convicts but not those with state convictions.

Employers should monitor Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and other guidance and seek advice of experienced legal counsel to develop and administer hiring policies to mitigate potential exposures.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

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

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends health care, education, DOT, government contractors and a wide range of other employers about drug testing and drug free workplace, discrimination, safety and other employment, benefit and other Human Resources, Guideline Program and other compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on Federal Marijuanna Pardons Create Potential Employer Headaches | ADA, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Discrimination, DOT, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, Education, EEOC, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Updated Form 5500s and Instructions Released

February 24, 2023

The U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) announcing changes to the 2023 Form 5500 Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan and Form 5500-SF Short Form in February 23.

The “Phase III” announcement released this week are set forth in the following:

Notice of Final Form Revisions, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/24/2023-02653/annual-information-returnreports
Notice of Final Rulemaking, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/24/2023-02652/annual-reporting-and-disclosure
Fact Sheet, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/changes-for-the-2023-form-5500-and-form-5500-sf-annual-return-reports

The Phase III announcement implements the third and final phase of implementation of a September, 2021 regulatory proposal, which included changes related to provisions in the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enforcement Act, commonly known as the SECURE Act, which affected annual reporting requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code.

The first two phases of implementation included publication of Federal Register notices in December 2021 for Phase I and May 2022 for Phase II, respectively, to adopt changes for the 2021 and 2022 Form 5500 Returns/Reports.

The Phase III announcement features a Notice of Final Forms Revisions from the EBSA, IRS and PBGC for the 2023 plan year forms and instructions and a Notice of Final Rulemaking by the department that makes corresponding changes to annual reporting regulations under Title I of ERISA.

The 2023 plan year reports – which generally will be filed beginning in July 2024 for calendar year plans – include the following changes:

A consolidated Form 5500 reporting option for certain groups of defined contribution retirement plans, improved reporting by pooled employer plans and other multiple employer plans.
A change in the participant-counting methodology for determining eligibility for simplified reporting alternatives available to “small plans,” which are generally plans with fewer than 100 participants.
A breakout of reporting on administrative expenses paid by the plan on the plan’s financial statements.
Further improvements in financial and funding reporting by PBGC-covered defined benefit plans.
The addition of selected Internal Revenue Code compliance questions to improve tax oversight and compliance of tax-qualified retirement plans.
Technical and conforming changes as part of the annual rollover of forms and instructions.

Additionally, technical adjustments were made to the Federal Register notices to address certain provisions in SECURE Act 2.0 of 2022 on Code section 403(b) multiple employer plans, including pooled employer plans, minimum required distributions and audit requirements for plans in defined contribution group reporting arrangements.

The Federal Register notices, Document #2023-02653 for the Notice of Final Forms Revision and Document #2023-02652 for Notice of Final Rulemaking, also include appendices that describe the changes to the forms and instructions as well as a regulatory impact and paperwork burden analyses. A more detailed summary of the annual reporting changes is included in a fact sheet posted on the department’s website today. Mock-ups of the forms and instructions will be available at reginfo.gov as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance process. The release of “for information-only” copies of the forms and instructions will happen later in 2023.

More Information

When investigating and responding to a violation, it is critically important to document the timing and details of the discovery of a potentially concern

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends businesses on Guideline Program and other compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Updated Form 5500s and Instructions Released | compliance, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, EBSA, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, ESOP, Form 5500, health plan, Health Plans, multiple employer plan (Meps), Retirement Plans, Retirements, third party administrators | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.5 Million Penalty Warns Other Businesses Against Child Labor Law Violations

February 19, 2023

The record setting $1.5 million in civil money penalties Packers Sanitation Services Inc. paid for illegally employing minors to perform hazardous duties in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) reminds other employers of their potential exposure for violating child labor laws.

Federal Child Labor Laws

The FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor rules affecting full- and part-time workers in the private sector and in the Federal, state and local governments that vary depending upon the age of the young worker and his or her occupation. In addition to these federal rules, states also generally impose their own child labor regulations. Businesses generally must comply with both.

As part of the federal rules, the FLSA both restricts hours of work for workers less than 18 years of age based on the age of the worker and generally prohibits employment of workers less than 18 years of age in nonagricultural occupations that the DOL finds and declares in a hazardous occupation order (“HO”) as particularly hazardous for 16- and 17-year-old minors, or detrimental to their health or well-being. In addition, Child Labor Regulation No. 3 also bans 14- and 15-year-olds from performing any work proscribed by the HOs. These currently include a HO that generally prohibits child worker employment in occupations involving operation or cleaning of power driven meat-processing machines, slaughtering and meat packing plants or employment in 16 other HOs.

Packers $1.5 Million Penalty

Packers’ payment of the $1.5 million civil money penalties resulted from an U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“DOL”) investigation of Packers Sanitation Services Inc. LTD, for violating the FLSA child labor rules.

The DOL imposed the civil penalties after finding the company employed at least 102 children from 13 to 17 years of age in hazardous occupations and had them working overnight shifts at 13 meat processing facilities in eight states.

The division began the Packers Sanitation Services Inc. investigation in August 2022 based on evidence that the company that provides cleaning services under contract to some of the nation’s largest meat and poultry producers employed at least 31 children from 13 to 17 years of age in hazardous occupations to clean dangerous powered equipment during overnight shifts at JBS USA plants in Grand Island, Nebraska, and Worthington, Minnesota, and at Turkey Valley Farms in Marshall, Minnesota. Subsequent investigations found similar violations in Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Bebraska and Texas.

“Our investigation found Packers Sanitation Services’ systems flagged some young workers as minors, but the company ignored the flags. When the Wage and Hour Division arrived with warrants, the adults – who had recruited, hired and supervised these children – tried to derail our efforts to investigate their employment practices,” said Wage and Hour Regional Administrator Michael Lazzeri in Chicago.

DOL assessed Packers $15,138 for each minor-aged employee who was employed in violation of the law. The amount is the maximum civil money penalty allowed by federal law.

When the Solicitor’s Office filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court November 9, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge John M. Gerrard responded by issuing a temporary restraining order on November 10, 2022, forbidding the company and its employees from committing child labor violations.

On December 6, 2022, the U.S. District Court of Nebraska entered a consent order and judgment, in which Packers agreed to comply with the FLSA’s child labor provisions in all of its operations nationwide, and to take significant steps to ensure future compliance with the law, including employing an outside compliance specialist.

On February 16, 2023, PSSI paid $1.5 million in civil money penalties.

The DOL announcement of the penalty warns other businesses against violating the child labor laws. “The Department of Labor has made it absolutely clear that violations of child labor laws will not be tolerated,” said Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda. “No child should ever be subject to the conditions found in this investigation. The courts have upheld the department’s rightful authority to execute federal court-approved search warrants and compelled this employer to change their hiring practices to ensure compliance with the law. Let this case be a powerful reminder that all workers in the United States are entitled to the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that an employer who violates wage laws will be held accountable.”

In light of this warning, other businesss should ensure their operations are not improperly using child labor.

More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends businesses on FLSA and other wage and. Our, compensation, benefits, worker classification and other workforce concerns and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Comments Off on $1.5 Million Penalty Warns Other Businesses Against Child Labor Law Violations | Child Labor, Civil Monetary Penalties, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employees Under Age 20, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.25 Million Cybersecurity Breach Settlement & Other Heightening Enforcement Warn Health Plans & Others To Fix Cybersecurity

February 4, 2023

Phoenix-based nonprofit health system Banner Health and its affiliates (“Banner Health”) paid $1.25 million and agreed to take corrective actions to resolve its exposure to potentially much greater Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule civil monetary penalty exposure for a 2016 cyber hacking breach that compromised the person health information of 2.81 million consumers. OCR used its February 2 announcement of the Banner Health settlement to warn health plans, health care providers, health care clearing houses (“covered entities”) and business associates covered by HIPAA to guard their own system containing protected health information against breach by cyber hacking even as the Department of Labor and other agencies are stepping up their cybersecurity rules, oversight and enforcement.

Banner Health Settlement

Banner Health is one of the largest non-profit health systems in the country, with over 50,000 employees and operating in six states. Banner Health is the largest employer in Arizona, and one of the largest in northern Colorado.

In November 2016, OCR initiated an investigation of Banner Health following the receipt of a breach report stating that a threat actor had gained unauthorized access to electronic protected health information, potentially affecting millions. The hacker accessed protected health information that included patient names, physician names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, clinical details, dates of service, claims information, lab results, medications, diagnoses and conditions, and health insurance information.

OCR’s investigation found evidence of long term, pervasive noncompliance with the HIPAA Security Rule across Banner Health’s organization, a serious concern given the size of this covered entity. Organizations must be proactive in their efforts to regularly monitor system activity for hacking incidents and have measures in place to sufficiently safeguard patient information from risk across their entire network.

The potential violations specifically include: the lack of an analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information across the organization, insufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack, failure to implement an authentication process to safeguard its electronic protected health information, and failure to have security measures in place to protect electronic protected health information from unauthorized access when it was being transmitted electronically.

Under the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan negotiated to resolve these potential violations, Banner Health paid $1,250,000 to OCR. Banner Health also agreed to implement a corrective action plan, which identifies steps Banner Health will take to resolve these potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule and protect the security of electronic patient health information that will be monitored for two years by OCR to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. Under the corrective action plan, Banner has agreed to take the following steps:

Conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities to electronic patient/system data across the organization
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address identified risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI
Develop, implement, and distribute policies and procedures for a risk analysis and risk management plan, the regular review of activity within their information systems, an authentication process to provide safeguards to data and records, and security measures to protect electronic protected health information from unauthorized access when it is being transmitted electronically, and
Report to HHS within thirty (30) days when workforce members fail to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule.

OCR Warns Other HIPAA-Covered Entities

In the health care sector, hacking is now the greatest threat to the privacy and security of protected health information. OCR’sannouncement of the serrlement reports 74 percent (74%) of the breaches reported to OCR in 2021 involved hacking/IT incidents.

The announcement also notes OCR offers an array of resources to help health care organizations bolster their cybersecurity posture and comply with the HIPAA Rules,

The settlement and OCR’s announcement warn other covered entities and business associates to use these and other necessary resources to protect their systems with protected health information from cyber hacking and other breaches.

In conjunction with reminding other covered entities of these resources, the settlement announcement quotes OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer as warning, ‘Hackers continue to threaten the privacy and security of patient information held by health care organizations, including our nation’s hospitals, … It is imperative that hospitals and other covered entities and business associates be vigilant in taking robust steps to protect their systems, data, and records, and this begins with understanding their risks, and taking action to prevent, respond to and combat such cyber-attacks. … Cyber security is on all of us, and we must take steps to protect our health care systems from these attacks.”

OCR’s enforcement record confirms these are not idyl threats. Breaches of the Security or Breach Notification Rules often result in significant civil monetary penalty assessments or negotiated settlements to mitigate civil liability exposures arising out of such breaches. See e.g., Clinical Laboratory Pays $25,000 To Settle Potential HIPAA Security Rule Violations (May 25, 2021); Health Insurer Pays $5.1 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 9.3 Million People (January 15, 2021); Aetna Pays $1,000,000 to Settle Three HIPAA Breaches(October 28, 2020); Health Insurer Pays $6.85 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 10.4 Million People (September 25, 2020); HIPAA Business Associate Pays $2.3 Million to Settle Breach Affecting Protected Health Information of Over 6 million Individual – (September 23, 2020); Lifespan Pays $1,040,000 to OCR to Settle Unencrypted Stolen Laptop Breach (July 27, 2020); Small Health Care Provider Fails to Implement Multiple HIPAA Security Rule Requirements (July 23, 2020).

Alerts issued by OCR regarding heightened security risks in recent months and a growing tide of highly publicized breaches send a strong warning to other covered entities and their business associates to reconfirm the adequacy of their own HIPAA privacy, security, breach notification and other procedures and protections by among other things:

Reviewing and monitoring on a documented, ongoing basis the adequacy and susceptibilities of existing practices, policies, safeguards of their own organizations, as well as their business associates and their vendors within the scope of attorney-client privilege taking into consideration data available from OCR, data regarding known or potential susceptibilities within their own operations as well as in the media, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.
Updating policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility.
Renegotiating and enhancing service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance, audit, oversight and reporting rights, workforce and vendor credentialing and access control, indemnification, insurance, cooperation and other rights and responsibilities of all entities and individuals that use, access or disclose, or provide systems, software or other services or tools that could impact on security; to clarify the respective rights, procedures and responsibilities of each party in regards to compliance audits, investigation, breach reporting, and mitigation; and other relevant matters.
Verifying and tightening technological and other tracking, documentation and safeguards and controls to the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and systems.
Conducting well-documented training as necessary to ensure that members of the workforce of each covered entity and business associate understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, understand their responsibilities and appropriate procedures for reporting and investigating potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand as well as are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reporting and responding to suspected
violations or other indicia of potential security concerns.
Tracking and reviewing on a systemized, well-documented basis actual and near miss security threats to evaluate, document decision-making and make timely adjustments to policies, practices, training, safeguards and other compliance components as necessary to identify and resolve risks.
Establishing and providing well-documented monitoring of compliance that includes board level oversight and reporting at least quarterly and sooner in response to potential threat indicators.
Establishing and providing well-documented timely investigation and redress of reported
violations or other compliance concerns.
Establishing contingency plans for responding in the event of a breach.
Establishing a well-documented process for monitoring and updating policies, practices and other efforts in response to changes in risks, practices and requirements.
Preparing and maintaining a well-documented record of compliance, risk, investigation and other security activities.
Pursuing other appropriate strategies to enhance the covered entity’s ability to demonstrate its compliance commitment both on paper and in operation.

Because susceptibilities in systems, software and other vendors of business associates, covered entities and their business associates should use care to assess and manage business associate and other vendor associated risks and compliance as well as tighten business associate and other service agreements to promote the improved cooperation, coordination, management and oversight required to comply with the new breach notification and other HIPAA requirements by specifically mapping out these details.

Beyond these HIPAA exposures, breaches and other HIPAA noncompliance carries other liability risks. Leaders of covered entities or their business associates also are cautioned that while HIPAA itself does not generally create any private right of action for victims of breach under HIPAA, breaches may create substantial liability for their organizations or increasingly, organizational leaders. For instance, the Department of Health & Human Services has warned health care providers participating in Medicare or other federal programs and Medicare Advantage health plans that HIPAA compliance is a program term of participation.

Health care providers and health insurers can face liability under state data privacy and breach, negligence or other statutory or common laws. In addition, physicians and other licensed parties may face professional discipline or other professional liability for breaches violating statutory or ethical standards.

Health plans also face a myriad of other exposures from failing to use appropriate cyber safeguards. Plan fiduciaries of employment based health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”} risk liability under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. The Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) now audits the adequacy of the cybersecurity and other HIPAA compliance of health plans and their third party administrators and other business associates as part of EBSA’s oversight and enforcement of ERISA. Department of Labor Assistant Secretary for EBSA Lisa Gomez confirmed audit and enforcement of cybersecurity obligations is a key priority in EBSA’s current work plan in her February 4, 2023 comments to the American bar Association.

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that it plans to pursue enforcement against leaders of public health care or other public companies that fail to use appropriate care to ensure their organizations comply with privacy and data security obligations.

Furthermore, appropriate cyber security practices also may be advisable elements for organizations to include in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs to mitigate potential organization liability risks under federal electronic crime and related laws.

In the face of these risks and warnings, all covered entities and their business associates should reassess and confirm the adequacy of their and their business associates’ cyber security defenses and breach response preparations.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends HIPAA covered entities, business associates and other organizations on HIPAA and other cyber, privacy and data security concerns and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Comments Off on $1.25 Million Cybersecurity Breach Settlement & Other Heightening Enforcement Warn Health Plans & Others To Fix Cybersecurity | Association Health Plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Cybersecurity, Data Breach, Data Security, Electronic Medical Record, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, FTC, Government Contractors, government employer, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Mental Health, pbm, Personal Health Records, Personal Health Recordss, pharmacy, Physician, Plan Admistrator, PPO, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Retaliation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ Withdrawal of “Outdated” Health Care Antitrust Policies Leaves Federal Health Industry Competition & Antitrust Policy Ambiguous

February 3, 2023

With health industry consolidation and competition continuing to draw public and lawmaker scrutiny, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division today (February 3, 2022) signaled the Biden Administration plans to redirect health care antitrust policy by withdrawing three healthcare antitrust policy statements it says are outdated.

The withdrawn policy statements are three statements of antitrust principles adopted more than a decade ago by the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) defining the agencies principles for interpreting and enforcing antitrust law in the healthcare industry:

Department of Justice and FTC Antitrust Enforcement Policy Statements in the Health Care Area (Sept. 15, 1993);
Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (Aug. 1, 1996); and
Statement of Antitrust Enforcement Policy Regarding Accountable Care Organizations Participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Oct. 20, 2011).

The withdrawal of the statements follows growing activity by DOJ in challenging certain other health industry conduct as anticompetitive under Fdderal antitrust laws in recent years as well as new policies challenging noncompetition and other workforce practices used widely within the health care industry. (These developments were discussed in a September, 2022 Joint Committee on Employee Benefits webinar on Department of Justice Enforcement Update webinar moderated by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.)

Following an uptake in DOJ health care and workforce antitrust enforcement in recent years, the announcement of the antitrust statement withdrawals confirms the Biden Administration led DOJ plans changes to care antitrust and other competition policies and enforcement impacting health care providers, payers, employers and other plan sponsors. In lieu of the principles previously provided by the withdrawn guidelines, DOJ says it will evaluate mergers and conduct in healthcare markets that may harm competition on the case-by-case basis. The announced plan to interpret antitrust law in health care on a case by case basis creates significant uncertainty about the scope of risk and safety of many contracting, business transaction and other activities in the health care industry. All segments of the marketplace should monitor developments and proceed cautiously to avoid inadvertently triggering challenges or liability as a result of the newly created ambiguity.

While employers, providers and others concerned about market power and consolidation among pharmacy benefit management companies (“PBMs”), mega healthcare systems and large health insurers are likely to welcome news of DOJ’s plan to update its policies and enforcement to reflect new market realities, DOJ’s announced plan to proceed on a case-by-case basis raises significant questions about the market participants and practices that will benefit or suffer under this new but undefined policy. Consequently, employer and other health plan sponsors, health industry providers, payers, and others concerned about health industry competition should proceed cautiously and carefully monitor developments at DOJ and FTC. Stay tuned for further developments.

More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and managed care and employer benefits legal, public policy and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her work has included ongoing involvement in health industry and workforce competition and antitrust issues.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Comments Off on DOJ Withdrawal of “Outdated” Health Care Antitrust Policies Leaves Federal Health Industry Competition & Antitrust Policy Ambiguous | Antitrust, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Emploeyrs, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, Health Industry Consolidation, health plan, Health Plans, Managed Care, pbm | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ New Language Access Law Enforcement Initiative & Denver Police Language Access Investigation Resolution Highlight Need To Manage LEP Accommodation Compliance & Risks

December 19, 2022

The Justice Department announced the launch of a new nationwide Law Enforcement Language Access Initiative (“LEP Initiative”) to help law enforcement agencies meet obligations to provide meaningful language assistance to limited English proficient (LEP) individuals along with driving home it’s commitment to enforce these LEP obligations by announcing a LEP investigation resolution with the Denver Police Department.

LEP Initiative

The Civil Rights Division’s Federal Coordination and Compliance Section in partnership with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will lead the new LEP Initiative. Specifically, the initiative will:

Develop technical assistance resources and tools that can assist local and state law enforcement agencies in their efforts to provide meaningful language access to LEP individuals and populations within their jurisdiction.
Affirmatively engage law enforcement agencies that want to review, update, and/or strengthen their language access polices, plans and training.
Leverage collaboration with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to conduct trainings in communities across the country to increase awareness of language access obligations and encourage widespread adoption of best practices by law enforcement agencies.
Strengthen the department’s ties and engagement with LEP community stakeholders and LEP populations.

“Providing law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to ensure effective and meaningful language access promotes and advances greater safety for limited English proficient people,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Through this Initiative, we will be able to share these language access best practices and similar resources with law enforcement agencies all across the country.”

Denver LEP Resolution Agreement

Coincident with announcing the LEP Initiative, the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado announced an agreement to resolve an investigation into allegations that the Denver Police Department (DPD) discriminated on the basis of national origin against LEP individuals in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance.

The Justice Department’s investigation of the DPD began after community members raised concerns about incidents involving Burmese and Rohingya-speaking LEP residents living in the East Colfax area of Denver. The Justice Department says it’s investigation revealed numerous instances where DPD officers either failed to provide language assistance to LEP individuals or provided language assistance that was ineffective or inappropriate. For example, the investigation uncovered situations where children, family members and bystanders were relied upon for language assistance, including in circumstances where more reliable and objective language assistance should have been provided.

As part of this settlement agreement, the DPD has agreed to implement a series of changes to its language access policies, procedures and training, including:

Updating its Language Access Policy and Plan in order to establish procedures for communicating with LEP individuals, including witnesses and suspects, and to prohibit the use of children, family members, or bystanders to communicate with LEP individuals, except in exigent circumstances;

Appointing its first-ever LEP Coordinator and establish Language Access Points of Contact (LAPCs) in every DPD district;
Training all DPD employees and new recruits on identifying, communicating with, and documenting interactions with LEP individuals; and
Creating a Language Access Committee that includes stakeholders representing LEP community interests.

The Justice Department announcement of the LEP Initiative in conjunction with the DPD and other growing series of investigations and enforcement demonstrates the strength of the Biden Administration’s continuing emphasis on the advancement of LEP and other civil rights and their enforcement in the public and private sector.

Public sector, organizations and agencies facing investigation commonly face threats to their federal funding if compliance deficiencies are found in an investigation.

Healthcare, educational, government, funded housing, and government contractors can expect discrimination, prosecution and sanctions, federal program, exclusion, or funding, and other sanctions in response to a finding of noncompliance.

Meanwhile, all other covered entities at minimum face, the threat of lawsuits brought by the government, private, litigants, or both.

Even when these enforcement actions are resolve, a bolster negotiation, the expenses of defense and correction can be high. The sanctions, cost of defense and other anticipated fall out where they violations are indefensible, or so great that negotiation of a reasonable resolution is difficult present even greater risks and costs. To mitigate exposure to these risks and costs, all organizations should review their current practices and training to shore up their efforts, in anticipation of a possible complaint or investigation.

Organizations should seek help from experienced legal counsel to design and train their operations leaders and team about appropriate practices and should seek the advice of legal counsel with investigation of complaints or other concerns, questions or any other issues about the adequacy of practices, documentation or other concerns impacting their compliance with these and other discrimination and civil rights practices in light of this emphasis. Organizations also should be careful to avoid any actions that might be construed as retaliation. Parties raising concerns should be carefully dealt with as the expression of these concerns could provide a basis for complaints, as well as complaints or prosecution for retaliation.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of advising, representing and defending domestic and international public, closely held and government organizations on workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and governance, and other risk management, compliance and government relations concerns as well as her coaching, scholarship, training and legislative and public affairs advocacy on these and related areas.

Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 35 year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, ICE, DOJ, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement and other strategic and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, expat and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence workforce, health care, pension, social security, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also shares her leadership through her extensive involvement in many professional, community and civic organizations. Currently, she serves as Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR and a representative for its Annual Agency Meeting with the EEOC, Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA Tort & Insurance Section (TIPS) Medicine and Law Committee, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Committee Welfare Plan Chair, and in various other projects and capacities. She also previously has served as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, the Society for Human Resources Management Region IV Board Chair and National Consultant’s Board Member; am Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for HR.com, Insurance ThoughtLeaders, BNA CD-Rolm, and Employee Benefits News; the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence Board President, Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, on the North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, as a Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas and many others.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. These include hundreds of highly regarded articles and workshops on health and other benefits, workforce, health care and insurance concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on DOJ New Language Access Law Enforcement Initiative & Denver Police Language Access Investigation Resolution Highlight Need To Manage LEP Accommodation Compliance & Risks | citizenship, Civil Monetary Penalties, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, English As A Second Language, government employer, national origin, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Risk Management, Schools | Tagged: civil rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, elp, Employer, Employment, I-9, Immigration, Labor Department, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Should Review Workplace Violence Plans and Training In Response To Recent Workplace Violence Tragedies

November 29, 2022

Two mass shootings of workers at Walmarts in Virginia in less than a month and a series of other recent workplace shootings around the country should prompt other employers to evaluate the adequacy of their own workplace violence safeguards under and other laws.

As demonstrated by the already filed state lawsuit filed by an employee of the Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart where a supervisor fatally shot six people in October, 2022, see here, businesses experiencing workplace violence events typically face OSHA and other investigations, lawsuits and critical media and public scrutiny. A well-documented and administered workplace violence safety plan can help mitigate legal and other risks.

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“OSHA”) generally considers protecting workers against workplace violence part of an employer’s general duty to make the workplace safe under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“(OSH Act”).

OSHA defines “workplace violence” as including any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors.

Many business leaders underestimate their organization’s workplace violence risk. Workplace violence is a much more common problem than most American business leaders realize. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), reported workplace injury data reflects there were 392 workplace homicides in 2020, the most recent year for which BLS has published data. There were also 37,060 nonfatal injuries in the workplace resulting from an intentional injury by another person. The five occupational groups with the most workplace homicides in 2020 were sales and related, transportation and material moving, management, construction and extraction, and production. Homicides in sales and related occupations accounted for 23.5 percent of all workplace homicides in 2020. See here.

Research has identified factors that may increase the risk of violence for some workers at certain worksites, such as exchanging money with the public, working with volatile, unstable people, working alone or in isolated areas, providing services and care, working where alcohol is served, time of day and location of work, Among those with higher-risk are workers who exchange money with the public, delivery drivers, healthcare professionals, public service workers, customer service agents, law enforcement personnel, and those who work alone or in small groups.

In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions.

OSHA believes that a well-written and implemented workplace violence prevention program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and federal workplaces. Therefore, OSHA expects employers to assess their worksites to identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring and adopt and implement an appropriate plan.

There are currently no specific OSHA standards for workplace violence. Rather the guidance contemplates each business will tailor an appropriate plan to fit its operations. OSHA provides various resources to aid employers ti DD slop their organization’s plan. The employer is responsible for tailoring an appropriate policy; the guidance strongly suggests including a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence covering all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.

OSHA has developed Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence, which provides guidance and procedures to be followed when conducting inspections and issuing citations related to the occupational exposure to workplace violence. These procedures also provide insight for employers to tailor their plans and practices. Including policies for emergency response, investigation and remediation also is advisable.

The plan can be a separate workplace violence prevention program or can be incorporated into a safety and health program, employee handbook, or manual of standard operating procedures. Employers are responsible for ensuring all workers know the policy and understand that all claims of workplace violence will be investigated and remedied promptly. In addition, OSHA encourages employers to develop additional methods as necessary to protect employees in high risk industries.

In developing and administering their workplace violence policies, employers should seek both to prevent workplace violence and build a record that can help the employer defend against or mitigate legal and other business risks in the event of an incident. Employers also should reevaluate and update their policies and practices in response to events within their own or other workplaces as necessary. Working with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege may help strengthen the risk assessment and policy design, while insulating sensitive discussions and analysis with the attorney-client communication or work product privileges.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement and other strategic and operational concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on Employers Should Review Workplace Violence Plans and Training In Response To Recent Workplace Violence Tragedies | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Disaster, Drug & Alcohol, Emergency, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, HR, Human Resources, OSHA, Safety, Whistleblower, workplace violence | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor, Management, OSHA, Safety, workplace violence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Extends Deadline For Contractors Objection To EEO-1 Reports FOIA Release

September 15, 2022

October 19, 2022 is the new deadline for federal contractors to object to the release of their Type 2 EEO-1 data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) August 19, 2022, Federal Register notice previously set a September 19, 2022 deadline for federal contractors to file this disclosure objection. See 87 FR 51145.

Today (September 15, 2022), the OFCCP extended this deadline to October 19, 2022.

When announcing the extension, OFCCP said the additional time was granted to ensure that covered contractors have time to ascertain whether they are covered and submit objections. OFCCP site several reasons for the extension.

Background On FOIA Disclosure & Objections

In 2019, OFCCP received a FOIA request for Type 2 Consolidated EEO-1 Report data submitted by federal contractors and first-tier subcontractors. In June 2022, the FOIA request was amended to include all such data submitted by contractors and first-tier subcontractors from 2016 until 2020.

Consistent with the U.S. Department of Labor’s disclosure regulations at 29 CFR 70.26(j), OFCCP notified contractors covered by this FOIA request through a published Notice in the Federal Register, an e-mail to and it’s website.

The Federal Register Notice provides specific instructions and a list of questions that should be addressed by those contractors who wish to object to the disclosure of their Type 2 Consolidated EEO-1 Report data. To facilitate contractors’ written objections and the agency’s assessment of them, OFCCP has created the Submitter Notice Response Portal, to collect relevant information from contractors and their representatives that wish to object to the release of the requested data. Additional guidance regarding the FOIA request is also available on this page.

The responses collected from this web form will be evaluated to determine whether the requested information includes confidential trade secret, commercial, or financial information that should be withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 4.

New Timeline

Following the latest extension, OFCCP will only consider all objections received by October 19, 2022.

The OFCCP’s Submitter Notice Response Portal provides additional information responding to frequently asked questions. Contractors also may contact:

National FOIA Office, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs U.S. Department of Labor Helpdesk Number: 1-800-397-6251 Email: OFCCPSubmitterResponse@dol.govSubmitter Notice Response Portal

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 35+ year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement and other strategic and operational concerns. Her experience includes significant experience helping government contractors, health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on OFCCP Extends Deadline For Contractors Objection To EEO-1 Reports FOIA Release | compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Department of Defense, DFAR, Diversity, EEOC, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, government employer, Rehabilitation Act | Tagged: eeo-1, Employer, foia, government contractor, OFCCP | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOD Contractors May Face Added Health Plan Obligations On DOD Contracts Funded With Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 Funds

March 17, 2022

Businesses hoping to cash in on Department of Defense (“DOD”) appropriations in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (“CAA”) signed into law on March 15, 2022 by contracting with DOD to perform functions currently performed by DOD civilian employees better budget to pay employer health plan contributions for workers that will perform the contracted services at the same rate as DOD would pay for services performed by its civilian employees.

Section 8047 of the CAA generally prohibits the DOD from using DOD appropriations from the CAA to pay for outsourced services to perform activities or functions performed by DOD civilian employees as of March 15, 2022 unless:

The conversion is based on the result of a public-private competition that includes a most efficient and cost-effective organization plan developed by such activity or function;
The Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, overall performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers for performance of the activity or function, the cost of performance of the activity or function by a contractor would be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that equals or exceeds the lesser of 10 percent of the most efficient organization’s personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or function by Federal employees or $10,000,000; and
The contractor does not receive an advantage for a proposal by not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan available to the workers to be employed in the performance of that activity or function under the contract or offering such workers an employer-sponsored health benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less towards the premium or subscription share than the amount that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

The health coverage requirement Section 8047 adds an addition nuance to the long and complex list of recruiting, employment, compensation, fringe benefit, procurement, cybersecurity, governance, contracting, conflict of interest, recordkeeping and a multitude of other requirements applicable to DOD contractors under the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regulations, the DOD Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and other federal laws and regulations.

Beyond the health coverage requirements of CAA Section 8047, DOD and other federal government contractors and subcontractors also should review and update their compliance plans for compliance with other applicable contracting and compliance obligations, many of which have been impacted by a series of policy and enforcement changes implemented by changes in Federal statutes, regulations and Executive Order impacting affirmative action, cybersecurity, benefits, compensation, worker classification and a host of other practices. Noncompliance with these requirements can trigger substantial judgments, civil monetary penalties, program disqualification and exclusion and in some instances criminal or civil prosecution under the False Claims Act and other federal statutes. DOD and other governmental contractors and subcontractors are encouraged to review their compliance plans, practices and documentation to confirm their readiness to defend a potential audit or enforcement action.

More Information.

For additional information about the requirements or concerns discussed in this article, republication or other related matters, please contact the author, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail, via telephone at (214) 452 -8297 or on LinkedIn.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, Form I-9 and other compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, internal controls, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well-known for her extensive work with health and life sciences, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, government contractors, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her more than 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com including the following:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on DOD Contractors May Face Added Health Plan Obligations On DOD Contracts Funded With Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 Funds | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, DFAR, Emploeyrs, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Government Accountability, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, OFCCP, OFCCP | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ Sues To Stop UnitedHealth Acquisition Of Change Health To Protect Employer Plan Innovation & Commercial Health Insurance Market Competition

March 3, 2022

The U.S. Department of Justice along with the Minnesota and New York Attorneys General (collectively “Justice Department”) have filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to stop UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“United”) from acquiring Change Healthcare Inc. (“Change”) on February 24, 2022 in an announced $13 billion transaction that the Justice Department claims will harm self-insured employer health plan innovation and competition in the commercial health insurance market. The suit is the latest in a series of Justice Department suits that seek to prevent continued consolidation of the health industry giants following decades of industry consolidation.

United, headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, is an integrated health care enterprise that includes, among other subsidiaries, UnitedHealthcare, the largest health insurer in the United States; Optum Health, a large network of health care providers located throughout the country; OptumRx, a large pharmacy benefit manager; and OptumInsight, a health care technology business. United’s revenues were $288 billion in 2021.

Change Healthcare Inc. headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, is a leading independent health care technology company providing health care analytics, software, services and data to health care providers, health insurers and other software and services firms in the health care industry. Today, Change markets itself as a partner to a wide variety of other health care ecosystem organizations including United’s major health insurance competitors as providing vital software and services need for innovation and problem solving. These services include electronic data interchange (EDI) clearinghouse services, which transmit claims and payment information between insurers and providers, and first-pass claims editing solutions, which review claims under the health insurer’s policies and relevant treatment protocols. Change’s revenues were $3.4 billion in 2021.

In the civil antitrust complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 24, 2022, the Justice Department charges United’s acquisition of this neutral player would allow United to tilt the playing field in its favor, harming current competition and allowing United to control and distort the course of innovation in this industry for the foreseeable future.

Among other things, the Justice Department alleges allowing United to eliminate a significant independent and innovative competitor firm by acquiring Change will undermine competition in the commercial health insurance market, stifle innovation in the employer health insurance markets and suppress competition in the market for a vital technology used by health insurers to process health insurance claims and reduce health care costs by giving United control of a critical data highway through which about half of all Americans’ health insurance claims pass each year.

As alleged in the complaint, the proposed transaction would give United, a massive company that owns the largest health insurer in the United States, access to a vast amount of its rival health insurers’ competitively sensitive information. Post-acquisition, United would be able to use its rivals’ information to gain an unfair advantage and harm competition in health insurance markets. The Justice Department also claims the proposed transaction would eliminate United’s only major rival for first-pass claims editing technology — a critical product used to efficiently process health insurance claims and save health insurers billions of dollars each year — and give United a monopoly share in the market.

A Justice Department press release about the lawsuit quotes Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division as saying, “Unless the deal is blocked, United stands to see and potentially use its health insurance rivals’ competitively sensitive information for its own business purposes and control these competitors’ access to innovations in vital health care technology. The department’s lawsuit makes clear that we will not hesitate to challenge transactions that harm competition by placing so much control of data and innovation in the hands of a single firm.”

The suit is the latest in a series of civil antitrust lawsuits challenging proposed mergers or acquisitions of between health insurance industry giants as anticompetitive in recent years. Stay tuned for more details.

More Information

About the Author

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

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

The American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. These include hundreds of highly regarded articles and workshops on health and other benefits, workforce, health care and insurance concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on DOJ Sues To Stop UnitedHealth Acquisition Of Change Health To Protect Employer Plan Innovation & Commercial Health Insurance Market Competition | Antitrust, Association Health Plan, Brokers, compensation transparency, compliance, Corporate Compliance, drug pricing, EBSA, Emploeyrs, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health care transparency, Health Industry Consolidation, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, insurers, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, pbms, pharmacy, prescription drugs, self insured health plan, Surprise Billing, third party administrators, tpa | Tagged: Health Care, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Konica Minolta Litigation Challenges Denial of Severance Following Office Relocation

ERISA Often Regulates Severance, Separation, Termination or Other Arrangements Paying Cash Upon Employment Termination

Arrangements Providing Payments For Employment Termination Or Unemployment Presumptively Regulated As ERISA Plans

Arrangements Subject To ERISA

ERISA Requires Written Plan Document and More

Written Plan Documents and Clear Eligibility Provisions

Fiduciary Responsibilities and Prudent Plan Administration

Benefit Claims and Appeals Procedures

Summary Plan Descriptions, Disclosures, and Reporting

Enforcement, Benefit Claims, and Fiduciary Liability

Employers and Business Leaders May Pay High Cost For Bungled Responsibilities

Practical Steps Employers Should Take Now

The Bottom Line

For Help or More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press™

OSHA Injury Tracking & Electronic Reporting Through December 31, 2023

New OSHA Electronic Reporting Rules After December 31, 2023

Biden Marijuanna Pardons

Potential Employer Challenges

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Federal Child Labor Laws

Packers $1.5 Million Penalty

More Information

About the Author

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Banner Health Settlement

OCR Warns Other HIPAA-Covered Entities

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

LEP Initiative

Denver LEP Resolution Agreement

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Background On FOIA Disclosure & Objections

New Timeline

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update