Employers |

Employers Face 8/30 Deadline To Complete & Document In-Person Inspections Of I-9 Documentation Examined Remotely During COVID-19 Emergency

June 5, 2023

Employers that took advantage of the temporary flexibility allowed by the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the COVID-19 health care emergency to inspect identity and employment authorization documents presented by workers to fulfill the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification requirements now must conduct and document their in-person of the identity and employment eligibility documents for those workers by August 30, 2023.

The Form I-9 rules usually require that employers physically conduct an in-person examination of the identity and employment eligibility documents of each worker to verify the worker’s eligibility to work in the United States.

While ICE’s Form I-9 rules continued to require in-persona physical inspection of worker identity and eligibility documents throughout the health care emergency, COVID-19 temporary flexibilities announced by ICE in March 2020 temporarily allowed employers to use remote inspection of the physical documentation in lieu of in-person inspection under certain circumstances while the flexibilities remained effective.

ICE announced in October 2022 that the COVID-19 flexibilities would end on July 31, 2023. When it announced the impending end of the temporary flexibilities, ICE also reminded employers relying on remote inspection of workers’ physical documentation that the employers would have to inspect in person documents for employees whose documents previously were examined remotely within 30 days after the end date of the flexibilities on July 31, 2023. Consequently, employers relying on remote inspections now face an August 30, 2023 deadline to complete the required in-person physical inspection of identity and employment authorization documents, for workers allowed to work based on remotely inspected identity and employment eligibility documents in accordance with the COVID-19 temporary flexibilities and after the employer physically examines the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents, to annotate the Form I-9 by adding “Documents Physically Examined” and the inspection date to the Section 2 “Additional Information” field on the Form I-9. ICE has indicated that workers allowed to work based on identity and eligibility documentation examined remotely under the temporary flexibilities will not qualify as eligible to work unless the required in-person inspection is completed and documented by the August 30, 2023 deadline. See I-9 Central Questions and Answers for more information.

Along with catching up their Form I-9 physical inspections and documentation for any workers hired during the COVID-19 emergency based remote inspection of identity and employment eligibility documentation employers should keep in mind that the end of the Form I-9 COVID-19 temporary flexibilities is only one a several developments impacting their ability to employ US or foreign citizens under U.S. law since the beginning of the pandemic. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Department of Labor and other agencies also have modified various other requirements for VISAs, terms and conditions of employment, national origin and other discrimination, safety and other laws. Additionally, DHS and other agencies also are pursuing other regulatory and enforcement changes, including by example, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for alternative procedures allowing remote document examination for Form I-9 DHS published last year. DHS has indicated it expects to publish a Final Rule in the Federal Register that will implement this proposal soon. Business leaders should review their overall compliance and stay tuned for new developments.

For More Information

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

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

About the Author

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, Immigration | Tagged: COVID, Eligibility to Work, Employer, I-9, ICE, Immigation, Pandemic | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Trucking Cos.’ $1.25M Sex Discrimination warns Other Employers

April 25, 2023

R&L Carriers, Inc. and R&L Carriers, Shared Services, LLC (R&L Carriers), a nationwide trucking company headquartered in Wilmington, Ohio, will pay $1,250,000 to a class of female applicants and take steps to prevent future discrimination against female applicants to settle a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on an applicant’s sex.

The settlement announced by the EEOC today resolves an EEOC’s lawsuit that charged R&L Carriers discriminated against women hiring for Wilmington, Ohio loader positions at least from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2017. Although a few women were hired as loaders, the company rejected or steered most female applicants to different positions because of their sex. Applicants and other witnesses stated they were told R&L Carriers did not hire women for loader positions. The alleged discriminatory conduct resulted in a large difference in the percentage of female applicants who were hired compared to male applicants who were hired.

Under the consent decree resolving the suit, the $1.25 million settlement fund will be handled by a claims administrator paid for by R&L Carriers. In the next few months, the EEOC and the claims administrator will make efforts to locate the women to whom the money will be distributed. The EEOC has set up an information line for additional information on the settlement.

The decree also orders R&L Carriers not to discriminate against female applicants at its Wilmington facility, and requires other equitable and affirmative relief, including that R&L Carriers train its hiring officials in legal hiring procedures and notify its recruiters and employees not to discriminate against women in hiring for loader positions. R&L Carriers also must invite rejected female applicants to reapply for Wilmington loader positions and engage in outreach and recruitment efforts related to employing women as loaders.

EEOC Warns Other Businesses

The settlement serves as a warning to other businesses not to engage in gender discrimination. The EEOC announcement of the settlement quotes EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows as stating, “The law requires companies to make hiring decisions based on an applicant’s qualifications, not gender stereotypes. The EEOC will continue working to ensure that job opportunities in trucking and all industries are available to all qualified workers, regardless of gender.”

EEOC Indianapolis District Office Director Kenneth Bird’s statement provides an even more pointed warning, stating, “Sex discrimination is illegal and will not be tolerated, …Employers should be on notice the EEOC will act aggressively to protect people from this type of discrimination. Employers cannot hire women for only some positions while excluding them from other positions.”

Businesss must recognize that adoption of policies in periodic training alone is an inadequate defense to potential sex or other gender discrimination charges. In addition to prohibiting discrimination and training their leader ship, and other workforce, Business is also should monitor recruitment, hiring, discipline, promotion and other aspects of their employment experience for statistical or other evidence of bias in the process. Along with these steps, businesses also provide mechanisms for reporting and conduct exit interviews to help uncover possible claims of prohibited bias or retaliation and should carefully respond to and investigate any reported or observed concerns.

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 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 gender and other discrimination and others workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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 Trucking Cos.’ $1.25M Sex Discrimination warns Other Employers | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, sexual harassnrnt | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$167K In Backpay and Penalties Restaurant Paying For FLSA Violations Warns Other Businesses

April 18, 2023

The $167,000 paid by Jurassic Street Tacos for failing to pay overtime, and keep required records cautions other employers about the importance of ensuring their own compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The payment resolves U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division charges that the street tacos restaurant operator violated the FLSA by paying straight time for all hours worked and, by doing so, failed to pay overtime for hours over 40 in a workweek. The division also discovered the employer did not maintain accurate time records as the law requires. The Labor Department required Jurassic Street Tacos to pay $ 83,539 in back wages and $83,539 in liquidated damages to 56 workers

Precautionary Lesson For Other Businesses

Employers caught making this mistake, can face back pay awards for the unpaid overtime, plus assessments of interest and penalties. To avoid these exposures, employers should consult with qualified legal counsel to confirm their proper treatment of all aspects of compensation paid to nonexempt employees for purposes of overtime, and other wage in our purposes.

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 employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on $167K In Backpay and Penalties Restaurant Paying For FLSA Violations Warns Other Businesses | board of directors, Brokers, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment Agreement, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

National Origin Discrimination Judgement Against Dallas Property Manager Warns Other Busin

April 6, 2023

Dallas-based property management company, Alden Short and Hinson Jennings, LLC (“Alden Short”) will pay $85,000 and furnish other relief under a consent degree entered in the EEOC v. Alden Short & Hinson Jennings, LLC national origin harassment lawsuit. Part of the deluge of discrimination suits the EEOC is prosecuting under the Biden Administration’s civil rights agenda, the litigation highlights the advisability of all employers covered by federal discrimination laws to tighten their compliance and risk management efforts.

Alden Short Judgement

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) originally filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas in 2018 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42. U.S.C. §1981a,

The EEOC alleges that that owner and president and the chief operating officer (COO) of Alden Alden Short subjected Claudia Guardiola, Linda Spears, and Leticia Stewart to a hostile work environment in violationn of federal law because of their Hispanic national origin by making disparaging comments relating to their national origin to the employees relating to their heritage, parents and children.

According to Assistant Regional Attorney Suzanne Anderson, one former employee said the COO told her he could treat her any way he wanted to because she is Mexican. Alden Short and Hinson Jennings to Pay $85,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination Suit (April 6, 2023).

According to EEOC Trial Attorney Brooke López, the employees complained because these companies rent to tenants in predominantly Hispanic communities, yet management treated their Hispanic employees with disparagement or discrimination, Id.

The EEOC alleged this comment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin.

Prior to agreeing to the consent decree, Alden Short in October, 2020 unsuccessfully sought summary judgment on the suit, arguing insufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the third and forth elements of the EEOC’s hostile work environment claim as required to establish a prima facie case of harassment as well as that Alden Short was not an employer under Title VII

In his September 21, 2021 opinion denying summary judgment to Alden Short, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsey noted that while the EEOC characterized the alleged improper discrimination as national origin discrimination, the allegations in the EEOC’s Complaint more clearly alleged a race claim, as the Complaint suggested but does not expressly state the womens’ country of birth or that of their ancestors. In ruling the failure to allege the country of origin in the complaint insufficient to merit summary judgement, Judge Lindsey noted:

National origin, though often confused with race, refers to “the country where a person was born, or, more broadly, the country from which his or her ancestors came.” Espinoza v. Farrah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86, 88 (1973). In any event, in some contexts national origin and racial discrimination are “so closely related . . . as to be indistinguishable.” Bullard v. OMI Georgia, Inc., 640 F.2d 632, 634 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). Discrimination against Hispanics is often referred to interchangeably under both of these categories. Cf., e.g., Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc., 117 F.3d 894, 895-96(5th Cir. 1997) (claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981). Accordingly, the court will consider the EEOC’s Complaint as sufficiently alleging a claim for discrimination based on national origin.

In addition to paying the any uninsured legal defense costs of the protracted litigation, the three-year consent decree settling the suit entered April 4, 2023 orders Alden Short to pay $85,000 in damages to the Hispanic employees, prohibits its future discrimination and requires Alden Short to develop and implement a new employee handbook and to provide employees with annual training on discrimination.

Discrimination Exposures Heightened

The Alden Short lawsuit and order are illustrative of the rise in EEOC and private civil rights and other employment discrimination and retaliation investigations, charges, and lawsuits under the proactive civil rights agenda of the Biden Administration.

In pursuit of its mission to advance equal employment opportunity, the EEOC focused on several major areas during FY 2022, including aggressive educational outreach, addressing systemic discrimination, advancing racial justice in the workplace, enforcing pay equity, and addressing the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.

Among other things, the EEOC 2022 Annual Performance Report (APR) (“2022 Data”) shows EEOC has seen an uptick in complaints filed by workers. In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022, the agency received 73,485 new discrimination charges, which represents an increase of almost 20% when compared to the previous fiscal year. The agency also handled more than 475,000 calls —an 18% increase from FY 2021—and managed 32% more emails from the public than the previous year.

To help manage the increased demand and strengthen the agency’s ability to prevent and remedy employment discrimination, the EEOC specifically focused on growing its workforce to meet growing requests for its assistance by filling 352 new positions and 500 total staff vacancies in FY 2022, the majority of which were in frontline positions.

The effects of this proactivity is confirmed by the 2022 EEOC enforcement data. The agency marked several significant accomplishments in FY 2022.

Obtained more than $513 million in monetary benefits for victims of discrimination, an increase from the previous fiscal year;
Resolved over 65,000 charges of discrimination.

Meanwhile in the federal sector, the EEOC:

Conducted more than 3,000 free outreach events reaching almost 220,000 individuals.
Resolved 9,336 hearings;
Recovered more than $132 million for federal workers and applicants; and
Significantly reduced the federal hearing inventory by 25% from FY 2021 to FY 2022

EEOC appears to be continuing its aggressive enforcement into 2023. In March, 2023 alone, for instance, the EEOC announced the following discrimination and retaliation enforcement actions and results:

Manage Exposures

These and other developments, send a strong message to businesses and business leaders to audit and strengthen their employment, discrimination and retaliation compliance and risk management efforts. When assessing risk, businesses should keep in mind the possibility that COVID-19 related operational disturbances likely affected compliance oversight, investigations, training, recordkeeping and other risk management. COVID and post COVID job changes also offer new fodder for potential retaliation claims. Staffing changes also may affect the availability of critical witnesses and their testimony. Businesses should review their situation broadly within the scope of attorney-client privilege when assessing a particular charge or their broader organizational risk. Reassessment if the adequacy of liability insurance and other reserves also may make sense. Public companies also should weigh their prospectus and other disclosure obligations.

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 employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on National Origin Discrimination Judgement Against Dallas Property Manager Warns Other Busin | board of directors, citizenship, Civil Rights, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, national origin, Race Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ Activision Lawsuit Sign Of Broader Workforce Related Antitrust Risks Under Biden Administration

April 4, 2023

A federal antitrust lawsuit and proposed consent decree filed the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”} on April 3, 2023 against one of the world’s largest video game developers and publishers Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) demonstrates DOJ’s resolve to move forward on its recently announced policy of weaponizing federal antitrust law against anticompetitive compensation and other labor market practices in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, With DOJ and other agencies moving aggressively both to tighten regulatory restraints on longstanding business practices that limit wages and worker competition in the labor force and simultaneously to investigate and challenge perceived anticompetitive workforce practices, all businesses should review and take advisable steps to strengthen the defensibility of any compensation or other workforce or business practices or arrangements likely to invite government or private antitrust challenges.

DOJ Activision Lawsuit

The DOJ Complaint in U.S. vs. Activision Blizzard, Inc. filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 3, 2023 alleges Activision and the independently-owned teams in two esports leagues owned and operated by Activision violated Federal antitrust law by implementing a so-called Competitive Balance Tax that penalized teams in the Overwatch and Call of Duty Leagues if a team’s player compensation exceeded a threshold set by Activision.

The Overwatch and Call of Duty Leagues, like other sports leagues, feature independently owned teams that not only compete to win matches, but also compete to hire and retain the best players. Because Overwatch and Call of Duty are both multiplayer, team-based games, teams in the Overwatch and Call of Duty Leagues must recruit and sign a roster of players who fill distinct roles within the game and can work with and complement their teammates’ skills.

The Complaint alleges the Tax had the purpose and effect of limiting competition between the teams and suppressing esports players’ wages, many of which spend thousands of hours honing their skills for a chance to sign with a professional team. Under Activision’s “Competitive Balance Tax,” rules, Activision pressured teams to limit player compensation and minimized the risk that one team would substantially outbid another for a player by fining teams dollar for dollar if their total player compensation exceeded a threshold set by Activision each year. For every dollar a team spent over that threshold, Activision fined the team one dollar and distributed the collected sum pro rata to all non-offending teams in the league.. The Complaint charges the Tax not only harmed the highest-paid players, but also depressed wages for all players on a team. For example, if a team wanted to pay a large salary to one player, the team would have to pay less to the other players on the team to avoid the Tax. Teams also understood that the Tax incentivized their competitors to limit player compensation in the same way, further exacerbating the Tax’s anticompetitive effects.

The DOJ Complaint charges the agreements between Activision and the teams in the Overwatch and Call of Duty Leagues to impose the Competitive Balance Tax constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. While acknowledging that players in other professional sports leagues have agreed to salary restrictions as part of collective bargaining agreements subject to antitrust exemptions for such collectively bargained limits, the Complaint distinguished the limitations on the players in Activision’s esports leagues as the Activision esports players are not members of a union and never negotiated or bargained for these rules. Accordingly, Activision should be enjoined from implementing the Competitive Balance Tax or any similar rule or restraint that, directly or indirectly, imposes an upper limit on compensation for any player or players in any professional esports league that Activision owns or controls.

A proposed consent decree filed by DOJ concurrently with the Compliant would prohibit Activision from imposing any rule that would, directly or indirectly, limit player compensation or that would tax, fine, or otherwise penalize any team for exceeding a certain amount of compensation for its players in any of Activision’s professional esports leagues. The proposed consent decree with Activision also would require Activision to certify that it has ended all Competitive Balance Taxes in its professional esports leagues, to implement revised antitrust compliance and whistleblower protection policies, and to provide notice and an explanation of the final judgment to teams and players in its professional esports leagues.

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed consent decree, along with the competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed consent decree during a 60-day comment period to Chief, Civil Conduct Task Force, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8600, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may enter the final judgment upon finding it is in the public interest.

Broaden Biden Administration War On “Anticompetitive Labor Market Abuses

The Activision lawsuit is part of a broader focus of the Antitrust Division on using federal antitrust law to combat perceived “anticompetitive labor market abuses” in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, in which among other things, President Biden affirmed it is the policy of his Administration “to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony — especially as these issues arise in labor market” such as noncompete agreements and other practices that restrict ability of workers to compete for wages or other terms of work. As part of the Executive Order’s call for a “total government” attack on these and other identified anticompetitive practices, ordered DOJ, the Department of Labor, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and other agencies to take all action within their power to put an end to anticompetitive labor practices.

In response to the Executive Order, DOJ, FTC and the NLRB have agreed to cooperate in the investigation and enforcement of federal laws restricting competition among workers regarding wages or other terms and conditions of employment as well as initiated various regulatory and enforcement projects to further strengthen these efforts.

For instance, the FTC on January 18, 2023 published its proposed Non-Compete Clause Rule published January 18, 2023, whose comment period expired on March 20, 2023.

Among other things, the Proposed Rule:

Would provide it is an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act for an employer to enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker; maintain with a worker a non-compete clause; or, under certain circumstances, represent to a worker that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause;
Would require employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses no later than the rule’s compliance date; and
Require an employer rescinding a non-compete clause to provide notice to the worker that the worker’s non-compete clause is no longer in effect.

As proposed, the Proposed Rule would reach to employment and a wide range of other services agreements by defining:

The term “employer” as a person that hires or contracts with a worker to work for the personproposed rule would define “worker” as a natural person who works, whether paid or unpaid, for an employer; and
The term “worker” to include an employee, individual classified as an independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, or sole proprietor who provides a service to a client or customer.

To facilitate compliance, the Proposed Rule would (1) include model language that would satisfy this notice requirementand establish a safe harbor whereby an employer would satisfy the rule’s requirement to rescind existing non-compete clauses where it provides the worker with a notice that complies with this notice requirement.

The Proposed Rule would define the term “non-compete clause” as a contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.As proposed, however, the Proposed Rule generally would exclude from its definition of a non-compete clause other types of restrictive employment covenants—such as non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) and client or customer non-solicitation agreements that generally do not prevent a worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person or operating a business after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employers and are not so unusually broad in scope that they function as such.

The Proposed Rule would include a limited exception for non-compete clauses between the seller and buyer of a business.This exception would only apply when the party restricted by the non-compete clause is an owner, member, or partner holding at least a 25% ownership interest in a business entity.The proposed regulatory text would clarify that non-compete clauses covered by this exception would remain subject to federal antitrust law as well as all other applicable law.

The FTC is expected to take quick action to finalize the Proposed Rule now that the comment period has ended. When and if finalized, the requirements of the Proposed Rule are scheduled to take effect 60 days after publication of the Proposed Rule in final form in the Federal Register.

While businesses should stay tuned for further developments regarding the Proposed Rule and other regulatory actions, the DOJ Activision lawsuit and other enforcement actions against businesses attacking compensation or other agreements among competitors impacting workers make clear that businesses immediately could face DOJ or other government or private challenges from their involvement or use of arrangements limiting compensation or other terms of work by workers, nonsolicitation, licensing, antipoaching, noncompete or other practices or agreements historically used by many businesses that have the effect of depressing worker wages or other compensation, freedom to change jobs or other ability to compete in the workplace. In the face of these risks, businesses should consider seeking a review of their existing policies and arrangements for potential exposure under these and other anticompetition regulatory or enforcement changes.

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 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.™

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 Activision Lawsuit Sign Of Broader Workforce Related Antitrust Risks Under Biden Administration | compensation, employee, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, Executive Compensation, Licensing Agreement, noncompete, Trade secret | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Race Suit Showcases Rising Business Discrimination & Retaliation Exposures

March 29, 2023

A new race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against commerce remanufacturer PRC Industries (PRC) warns other businesses of the increased need to use care to protect their own organizations against employment discrimination and retaliation charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws given the heightened proactivity of the Biden Administration led EEOC in investigation and prosecuting these types of complaints.

PRC Race Suit

According to EEOC’s complaint in EEOC v PRC Industries, Inc. Corp, Case No. 3-27-2023 JJO-VSC, two Black workers, a married couple hired in January 2020 to work at PRC’s Reno, Nevada repair facility faced constant racial taunts and slurs, including the ‘n-word,’ from their supervisors, a brother and sister. The couple also observed the sibling supervisors routinely denigrating other Black employees due to their race. The complaint charges this conduct occurred openly, in front of co-workers and managers. Senior personnel, including a site manager and a vice president, failed to take adequate steps to curb the misconduct, despite being put on notice of the racial harassment. In late-May 2020, when the couple continued to report ongoing offensive treatment, they were fired via text message by one of the supervisors accused of harassment.

The EEOC charges this alleged conduct of tolerating racial harassment and firing the workers for complaining to the EEOC about it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits harassment due to race and requires employers to take prompt action to investigate and stop the misconduct after they receive notice of it.

The EEOC lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.

EEOC Enforcement Warn Other Businesses

The EEOC press release on the lawsuit warns other businesses and their leaders against committing or tolerating similar or other prohibited discrimination or retaliation.

“Leaders set company culture by the language and conduct they choose to tolerate as well as the behavior they model,” said EEOC San Francisco District Director Nancy Sienko. “Federal civil rights laws mandate that employers act promptly and effectively to stop race-based harassment, and the EEOC will hold employers accountable if they fail to meet their obligations.”

The PRC lawsuit is one of the latest in an accelerating civil rights and other employment discrimination and retaliation investigations, charges, and lawsuits the EEOC is taking in response to the proactive civil rights agenda of the Biden Administration.

The effects of this proactivity is confirmed by the 2022 EEOC enforcement data. The agency marked several significant accomplishments in FY 2022.

Obtained more than $513 million in monetary benefits for victims of discrimination, an increase from the previous fiscal year;
Resolved over 65,000 charges of discrimination.

Meanwhile in the federal sector, the EEOC:

Conducted more than 3,000 free outreach events reaching almost 220,000 individuals.
Resolved 9,336 hearings;
Recovered more than $132 million for federal workers and applicants; and
Significantly reduced the federal hearing inventory by 25% from FY 2021 to FY 2022

EEOC appears to be continuing its aggressive enforcement into 2023. In March, 2023 alone, for instance, the EEOC has announced the following discrimination and retaliation actions

These and other developments, send a strong message to businesses and business leaders to use their compliance and employment, discrimination and retaliation compliance, and risk management efforts. No b

In the face of these developments, businesses and their leaders should move quickly to audit, their current compliance and risk as well as manage their exposures.

In assessing pre-existing risk, businesses should take in to count the likelihood that compliance and operations may have been disrupted during the COVID healthcare emergency. Additional difficulties in investigating and defending risk also may arise because of turnover in management or other staffing. In light of these and other challenges, many businesses may wish to consider acquiring or increasing their employment practices liability as a backstop against these risks.

More Information

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 employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on EEOC Race Suit Showcases Rising Business Discrimination & Retaliation Exposures | ADA, Affirmative Action, citizenship, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID-19, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, national origin, Race Discrimination, Religous Discrimination, sexual harassnrnt, Transgender, USERRA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Know When FLSA Overtime Rate Includes Shift Differentials, Incentives, Bonuses & Other Supplemental Comp To Avoid Pricey Overtime Mistakes

March 28, 2023

A $259,474 backpay award the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) ordered plastics manufacturer Jadex Inc. and four subsidiaries (“Jadex”) to pay alerts other businesses against improperly failing to include incentives, bonuses and premium pay failed to include incentives, bonuses and premium when calculating and paying overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Jadex Overtime Schooling

Jadex Inc., a South Carolina manufacturing holding company that employs approximately 1,800 employees at its headquarters and subsidiaries, Alltrista Plastics LLC, ArtaZn LLC, LifeMade Products LLC, and Shakespeare Co. LLC, is learning an expensive lesson about the FlSA’s requirements to include most shift, differentials, bonuses, or other supplemental compensation in an employee’s base rate of pay when calculating his overtime.

WHD found Jadex underpaid 939 employees by improperly omitting additional pay from the base rate of pay when calculating overtime,

A WHD audit of Jadex found the employers violated the FLSA by failing to include bonuses workers earned by reaching sales and safety goals per quarter, incentives awarded for working night shifts and for serving as trainers to other employees, additional hourly amounts for every hour worked during peak production seasons and bonuses for perfect attendance and personal safety performance during peak seasons.

As a result of the audit, WHD recovered a total $259,474 of overtime for the employees from Jadex.

Precautionary Lesson For Other Businesses

WHD warned other businesses against making similar mistakes when calculating overtime due their workers when announcing its recovery from Jafex. “Employers must understand all applicable rules when it comes to paying workers overtime. This includes adding bonuses and incentive pay when factoring overtime pay. Anything less robs workers of their hard-earned wages,” said Wage and Hour Division District Director Jamie Benefiel in Columbia, South Carolina.

Employers often unknowingly underpay overtime, because they failed to recognize that most bonuses, incentive pay, shift differentials, and other special compensation presumptively generally must be included in the base rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime due to non exempt employees unless the employer can demonstrate that the extra compensation qualifies under one of the exemptions allowed by the FLSA.

Getting nailed for failing to appropriately, taking account incentive, bonus, shift, differentials, and other supplemental compensation creates a particular hardship for the employer as the employer will unexpectedly before’s to pay 1 1/2 times the budgeted supplemental compensation amount plus interest and penalties for overtime hours worked if it turns out that the compensation is required to be taken in account for overtime purposes.

To avoid these unpleasant consequences, businesses and their leaders should consult with qualified legal counsel to fully understand how supplemental compensation is likely to be treated for purposes of the FLSA, before announcing or paying the supplemental compensation. Pre-armed with a proper understanding of what types of supplemental compensation, the FLSA requires an employer to include in the base rate of pay for overtime calculation purposes empowers the business to more reliably budget for and pay incentive compensation without the risk of an anticipated overtime liability.

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 employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Know When FLSA Overtime Rate Includes Shift Differentials, Incentives, Bonuses & Other Supplemental Comp To Avoid Pricey Overtime Mistakes | board of directors, Brokers, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment Agreement, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Providing Or Using PEOs Or Other Outsourced Payroll Services? Review Updated IRS Certified Professional Employer Organization Rules

March 10, 2023

Professional employer organizations (“PEOs”) and other entities performing payroll administration and tax reporting responsibilities for their business clients and employing businesses that use their services should review the updated Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) requirements to be and remain a Certified Professional Employer Organization (CPEO) under the voluntary CPEO Program the IRS established and administers under the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014. Revenue Procedure 2023-18 updates the IRS’ current rules and procedures to become and remain certified as a Certified Professional Employer Organization (CPEO) and the procedures relating to suspension and revocation of CPEO certification.

Voluntarily becoming and remaining certified as a CPEO means that a PEO has met the detailed background, experience, business location, financial reporting, tax compliance, and bonding requirements described in the statute and regulations of the CPEO program.

To be eligible for certification as a CPEO, a PEO:

must be a business entity,
must have at least one physical business location within the United States,
should have a history of financial responsibility, organizational integrity, and tax compliance (federal, state, and local),
and should be managed by individuals (a majority of whom are U.S. citizens or residents) who have knowledge or experience regarding federal and state employment tax compliance and business practices relating to those compliance requirements.

Like its predecessors, Revenue Procedure 2023-18 requires PEOs must meet and comply with detained requirements for becoming and remaining certified as a CPEO and PEOs performing payroll services as a CPEO assume additional tax liability. In addition to the detailed requirements to show suitability to qualify as a CPEO, CPEOs also face annual reporting and other requirements to preserve their certification. PEOS that currently are, or are interested in becoming CPEOs should carefully review these requirements to ensure their ability to meet and comply with the conditions.

Although CPEO certification is voluntary, many PEOs find the burdens of certification helpful if not necessary to meet the expectation of their preferred customers. Many businesses outsourcing payroll and other tax services require or prefer use CPEOs when outsourcing payroll and other tax services because if the CPEO and business agree and the CPEO timely files the required Form 8973, Certified Professional Employer Organization/Customer Reporting Agreement with the IRS at the start of the contract, the CPEO generally becomes solely liable for paying the customer’s employment taxes, filing returns, and making deposits and payments for the taxes reported with regard to remuneration it pays to work site (but not nonwork site) employees under the payroll outsourcing arrangement. The CPEO will file aggregate employment tax returns for all its customers using the CPEO’s employer identification number (EIN) with the appropriate Schedule R, Allocation Schedule for Aggregate Filers attached that allocates to each customer the information reported. The CPEO deposits and pays the tax liabilities of those customers using the CPEO’s EIN, according to the CPEO’s deposit requirements. CPEO customers cannot view federal tax deposits and payments made by the CPEO using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). In other words, an appropriate payroll outsourcing arrangement with a CPEO allows the business both to outsource the performance of the functions and much of the liability for the proper performance of those activities to the CPEO. A CPEO and its customer may both be liable with regard to remuneration the CPEO pays to non-worksite employees, however. For additional information on employers outsourcing their payroll responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code, see Outsourcing Payroll and Third Party Payers.

PEOs apply to become CPEOs using the IRS’ Online Registration System for PEO certification which requires the applying PEO to complete the following:

Revenue Procedure 2023-18 modifies and supersedes both Revenue Procedure 2016-33 and Revenue Procedure 2017-14. It addresses the procedures for applying to be certified as a Certified Professional Employer Organization (CPEO), the requirements for a CPEO to remain certified, and the procedures relating to suspension and revocation of CPEO certification. Revenue Procedure 2023-18 is scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2023-13, on March 27, 2023. Its provisions become effective today effective March 10, 2023. CPEOs and PEOs contemplating certification, as well as the businesses outsourcing or considering outsourcing to them should carefully evaluate the updated guidance and its implications on their responsibilities and liabilities. When conducting these evaluations and contracting, all parties should fully understand the implications of the arrangement. Likewise, parties involved in these arrangements also should keep in mind that the Internal Revenue Code characterization of relationships to workers and allocations of responsibility and liability for payroll or other tax obligations do not determine the consequences of their arrangement for most other legal purposes. Rather, the characterization of an outsourcing business and a PEO or other workforce vendor as an employer, joint employer, agent or other responsible party and each party’s potential respective obligations and exposures under Federal or state wage and hour, discrimination, safety, leave, union and other labor and employment laws is governed by the applicable statutes, regulations and rulings. PEOs and businesses using PEO or other outsourcing, staffing, subcontracting or similar arrangements should carefully evaluate the consequences of their proposed arrangements under all relevant laws. For additional information on employers outsourcing their payroll responsibilities, see Outsourcing Payroll and Third Party Payers.

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 employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Providing Or Using PEOs Or Other Outsourced Payroll Services? Review Updated IRS Certified Professional Employer Organization Rules | Brokers, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment Tax, Wage & Hour | 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

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Affordable Housing Company Nailed For Sexual Harassment

March 3, 2023

Kingston Properties will pay $240,000 to five women to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex, including subjecting employees a hostile work environment based on sex. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (EEOC v. Birchez Associates LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 19-cv-8110) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Steve Aaron, the former owner and top management official of the affordable housing development company repeatedly subjected female employees to crude sexual comments. He frequently yelled at his female employees and used obscene sexist epithets. The harassment also involved unwelcome physical contact and subjecting a female employee to pornography on a cell phone. Despite repeated objections by female employees, the conduct did not stop, causing several women to resign.

During the lawsuit, a new owner purchased the properties. Under the decree, the new owner will not allow Steve Aaron or the top manager of the prior companies to be involved with their employees or in the management of the buildings.

The lawsuit and settlement are among a waive of employment discrimination lawsuits, settlements and charges the EEOC has announced in recent weeks which warn other employers to ensure their workplaces comply with federal sexual harassment and other employment discrimination laws. Employers covered by these rules are encouraged to take steps to position their organizations to avoid and defend against similar charges or disputes.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Affordable Housing Company Nailed For Sexual Harassment | Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Sexual Harassment, sexual harassnrnt | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Disability Program Sued For Disability Discrimination

March 3, 2023

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is suing a nonprofit providing programs for people with disabilities and others to build self-reliance through educational, therapeutic, and employment services for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by refusing to accommodate an employee with a degenerative hip impairment and instead fired her.

The ADA prohibits employers from refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to employees or applicants with a disability unless doing so would constitute an undue hardship.

According to the EEOC’s suit filed today (March 3, 2023) against Innovative Services NW (ISNW),Carly Romero earned praise as a valued employee and strong performer by high level managers during the seven years she worked as a janitor in the Innovative Services NW (ISNW), Janitorial Services Program in Vancouver, Washington.

In November 2019, Romero attempted to return to work with a doctor’s release allowing her to resume janitorial activities, except for wearing a backpack vacuum. As a reasonable accommodation, Romero asked to use an upright vacuum instead. The EEOC’s investigation found that even though ISNW had permitted other janitors to use upright vacuums at some customer sites, ISNW refused Romero’s repeated requests to return to work. Claiming “there would be too much risk to return [Romero] to work without a 100% release,” ISNW placed Romero on unpaid leave, then fired her on January 21, 2020.

The EEOC charges these actions by ISNW violated the ADA. “Ms. Romero simply asked to return to work using an upright vacuum, equipment already used by other employees. Instead, ISNW chose to fire her,” said Elizabeth Cannon, director of EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Under the ADA, an employer cannot deny an employee with a disability the opportunity to work when there is a readily available accommodation that would allow her to perform her job.”

After attempting to negotiate a settlement failed, the EEOC filed its lawsuit, EEOC v. Innovative Services NW, Civil Number 2:23-CV-00295, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief designed to prevent similar discrimination in the future. If the EEOC prevails ISNW can expect to be ordered to pay attorneys’s fees as well.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Disability Program Sued For Disability Discrimination | ADA, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, enforcement | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, Employer, Employers, Employment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Order Shows What Not To Do When Facing A FLSA Or Other DOL Investigation

March 2, 2023

A federal court order against a Brewster home care provider shows some key things an employer should not do when facing a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or other Labor Department investigation. With Labor Department wage and hour and other employment and labor law enforcement soaring under the Biden Administration’s pro-employee agenda, all employers should learn from the schooling this and other noncompliant employers are receiving from the Labor Department and courts.

Sunrise Home Health Care, Inc. & Owner Injunction For FLSA Investigation interference & Retaliation

The Labor Department obtained a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 1, 2023 ordering Sunrise Home Care Inc. and owner Elsa Silva to stop retaliating against employees in an effort to obstruct the wage and Hour Division’s FLSA investigation.

According to the Labor Department complaint, when the Wage and Hour Division began an investigation to evaluate the employers’ compliance with the FLSA in January 2023, Silva has harassed and intimidated employees repeatedly by

Asking workers about their communications with investigators;
instructing workers to provide false information;
Telling employees she would have to close the business and they would lose their jobs if the investigation determined she had to pay overtime premiums; and
Pressuring employees to agree to return to the employers any monies owed to employees as a result of the investigation.

The court order secured by the Labor Department forbids Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. from doing the following:

Violating the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.
Threatening employees with termination or other retaliatory actions or taking any other actions to prevent them from participating in the Department’s investigation or in any other FLSA-protected activity.
Obstructing and interfering, in any way, with the investigation.
Telling workers not to cooperate with investigators or to provide incomplete or false information to them.
Questioning employees about their cooperation or communications with investigators.
Advising current and former employees that they must “kickback” or return any back wages the department may determine they are owed.
Communicating with any employee regarding the investigation without first informing the employee that they may communicate with investigators voluntarily and not be discriminated against for doing so.

The court order secured by the Labor Department also orders Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. to:

Permit division representatives to read aloud – in English, Spanish, Portuguese and any other language understood by most employees – a statement describing employees’ FLSA rights during their paid working hours and in the presence of the defendants.
Mail a written statement of the same to current and former employees.
Provide a written notice to the Wage and Hour Division at least seven days before terminating an employee for any reason.

The injunctive relief issued by the Court seeks to allows the Labor Department investigation to continue without further employer obstruction. Aside from any contempt sanctions Sunrise and Silva could incur for violating the court’s order, the alleged threats and retaliation also could serve as a basis for the assessment of additional liability as a sanction for the employee’s prohibited retaliation beyond any backpay and penalty awards the Labor Department finds the employer owes for failing to pay wages or keep records.

FLSA Liability Risks High; Learn From Other Employer’s Mistakes

Other employees and their management should learn from the schooling the court ordered against Sunrise and Silva and avoid engaging in the actions prohibited by the court order when facing their own FLSA or other Labor Department investigation.

The Labor Department views audit, investigation and enforcement of the FLSA compliance and violations a key priority and employers risk significant liability for violations from Wage and Hour Division or private enforcement.

Enforcement by the Labor Department and private litigants of minimum wage, overtime, child labor, human trafficking and other laws is increasingly common. the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division concludes approximately 21,000 Fair Labor Standards Act cases, impacting over 200,000 workers each year. Over the last five years, Wage and Hour has collected more than $1 billion in back wages for workers in America. But the Department of Labor recognizes that back wages alone provide insufficient compensation to employees for lost wages. Although actual enforcement dipped slightly over the past two years due to the disruption in the Wage and Hour Division’s staffing and operation during the COVID-19 health care emergency, its announcement of a stream of FLSA enforcement actions reflects it is resuming its zealous enforcement. See WHD FLSA and Other Statistics. Therefore, liquidated damages are intended to compensate workers for damages they may have incurred as the result of not having been paid timely for all the wages they legally earned.

Employers found in violation of these rules enforcement actions face actual damages, interest, civil monetary penalties, enforcement costs, and in the case of willful violations, even potential criminal sanctions. While the Labor Department during the Trump Presidency suspended its pursuit of collection of liquidated damages authorized under the FLSA Generous recoveries also make private enforcement very attractive to employees and plaintiffs’ counsel, this leniency ended after President Biden took office. Since April 9, 2021, Labor Department wage and hour law enforcement policy includes pursuing the implementation and collection of liquidated damages in addition to back pay and interest due for unpaid wages from employers found in violation of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws. Private litigants can recover actual damages plus double damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. The availability of these extraordinary damages and recoveries makes these highly popular cases to many plaintiffs’ attorneys.

As demonstrated by the Exxon injunction, employers facing wage and hour investigations, audits or even employee inquiries or underpayment assertions other should keep in mind that actions by the employer that could be viewed as interference with an investigation by the Labor Department as well as improperly handled employee questions or statements of concern about potential FLSA and other related requirements can create retaliation or whistleblower risks. Accordingly, employers should use care to investigate and respond carefully to these concerns, addressing workers during the conduct of a Labor Department audit, investigation or enforcement action and in handling subsequent discipline or other employment decisions involving workers raising them.

Along with FLSA claims, these violations also can trigger state wage an hour, payday act and other liabilities.

Many businesses experience difficulties defending wage and hour and other FLSA claims due to lax timekeeping and recordkeeping practices, misclassification of workers as contract labor or exempt, failure to include nondiscretionary bonus or other required compensation or hours of work when calculating overtime liability and other common mistakes.

Businesses also should use care to manage their potential exposure to joint employer or other liability for unpaid wages, overtime or other FLSA violations committed by subcontractors, contract labor companies, staffing or other businesses providing workers. Businesses can face imputed liability for violations committed by these other organizations when the facts and circumstances show the business exercises sufficient control over the details of the details of the worker’s work to qualify as a common law employer, whether the relationship between the business and the provider of worker qualifies as a “joint employment” relationship under the rules applicable to FLSA and National Labor Relations Act determinations for joint employment or certain other situations. he Wage and Hour Division also has propose adoption of a regulation to govern classification of workers as employees versus independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA, which if adopted, would heighten the likelihood that many workers considered contractors by businesses could be reclassified by the Labor Department as employees for FLSA and other wage and hour law purposes. The comment period for that regulation closed in December, 2022. Government contractors and subcontractors also may bear responsibility for contracting with subcontractors and taking other steps to ensure that these subcontracting entities comply with government contract wage requirements and the FLSA.

Misunderstandings about when workers are classified as employees versus contractors, exempt versus non-exempt, and regarding the appropriate tracking, counting, and reporting of hours work increasingly play a major role in aiding Labor Department or plaintiff’s successful enforcement and increase employer liability. Many employers failure to appreciate the significance of statutory presumptions of the existence of an employment relationship and of non-exempt status on the burden of proof the employer must meet to defend its treatment of a worker as a nonemployee or exempt employee. Many employers also fail to recognize the significance of special FLSA rules for characterization of workers as employees, the risk of reclassification of workers the employer considers as contractors or through staffing, day labor or other labor subcontractors as their employees or joint employees. Equally common are misconceptions about the narrowness of the rules for treating employees as exempt and eligible for payment on a salary rather than hourly basis. These mistakes also create a heightened risk that the employer will failed to track necessary Information to defend against employee or Labor Department hours of work claims, overtime or minimum wage claim as well as fuel additional liability for failing to comply with FLSA rules for tracking reporting of hours work. These misperceptions also often lead misinformed employers to take actions that provide a basis for retaliation claims. The Labor Department and private litigant leverage these mistakes to achieve their recoveries.

Because these audits often uncover violations or lead to sensitive conversations about the classification and payment of workers under the FLSA and other laws, employers and their leaders generally should arrange for this analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney client privilege under the direction of a lawyer experienced in FLSA and other employment law compliance.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Court Order Shows What Not To Do When Facing A FLSA Or Other DOL Investigation | Child Labor, child labor, compensation, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Handbook, Employees Under Age 20, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FMLA, Government Contractors, Handicapped Employee, HR, Human Resources, Joint Employer, Retaliation, tipped employee, White Collar Exemption | Tagged: compliance, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employment, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Retaliation, Wage & Hour, wage and hour | 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

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.

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

ICE Clarifies F-1 Visa Emergent Relief Period

February 22, 2023

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“ICE”) issued policy guidance clarifying the validity period of employment authorization for F-1 nonimmigrant students experiencing severe economic hardship due to emergent circumstances (also known as special student relief (SSR)) who are work authorized under the SSR provisions of 8 CFR. Business leaders should note the update both to recognize the students’ expanded eligibility to work to avoid improper discrimination against foreign student applicants and as prospects for worker hires.

The policy update to the USCIS Policy Manual clarifies that in cases of severe economic hardship due to emergent circumstances, ICE may grant off-campus SSR employment authorization to an F-1 nonimmigrant student for the duration of the Federal Register notice validity period, which is typically 18-months. However this employment authorization may not extend past the student’s academic program end date..

Emergent circumstances are events that affect F-1 nonimmigrant students from a particular region and create severe economic hardship. These events may include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, financial crises, and military conflicts.

This policy update will be effective when published and will apply to all pending and future applications for SSR employment authorization.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other workforce 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

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.™

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 ICE Clarifies F-1 Visa Emergent Relief Period | Corporate Compliance, employee, Employer, Employers, HR, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Management, visas, Worker, Workforce | 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

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.

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

OSHA Gains Power To Get Visas For Certain Non-Citizen Crime Witnesses

February 15, 2023

Beginning March 30, 2023, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) criminal investigation and enforcement will be beefed up by a new authority to issue certifications to provide U Nonimmigrant Status and T Nonimmigrant Status visas to noncitizens to remain in the U.S. to assist in OSHA investigations without fear of deportation or other retaliation.

“U Visas” and “T Visas” allow non-citizen victims of specific crimes to help law enforcement detect, investigate and prosecute crimes without fear of retaliation based on their immigration status by providing them immigration status that allows them to remain in the U.S. to assist authorities in combatting human trafficking and other crimes.

Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh joined Assistant OSHA Secretary Doug Parker to sign a memorandum granting OSHA authority to issue these certifications on February 13. The memorandum for the first time gives OSHA the ability o issue these visa certifications during its workplace safety investigations when the agency identifies manslaughter, trafficking, extortion, felonious assault, forced labor, obstruction of justice or other qualifying criminal violations.

OSHA hopes this new authority will strengthen its ability to secure cooperation of witnesses with immigration status or other social and cultural inequities that discourage them from sharing information with investigators or reporting workplace safety and health issues.

The new authority could enhance OSHA’s ability to investigate and prosecute criminal occupational health and safety and a wide range of other federal laws where non-citizen employees or other noncitizens are victims or witnesses. This new authority could significantly affect criminal conviction risks for businesses using other noncitizen labor as employees.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health, health plan and managed care industry, workplace safer and occupational health, public health and safety, and other health care operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs.

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.™

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 OSHA Gains Power To Get Visas For Certain Non-Citizen Crime Witnesses | Child Labor, Child Safety, citizenship, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Discrimination, E-Verify, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Termination, enforcement, English As A Second Language, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Government Contractors, government employer, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, national origin, Non-Exempt, Nonresident aliens, occupational safety, Prevailing Wage, tpa, Whistleblower, Worker, Worker Classification, Workers' Compensation, Workforce, workplace violence | 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.™

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.

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.™

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

EEOC Resource Explains Workplace ADA Requirements For Hearing Impaired

January 24, 2023

Employers and their hiring agents should review the updated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) resource on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for workplace accommodation of job applicants and employees who are deaf or hard of hearing or have other hearing conditions.

The Hearing Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act release on January 24, 2023 follows a growing list of EEOC and other federal agency enforcement actions against businesses and other entities for improperly failing to accommodate or discriminating against individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have other hearing conditions. See, e.g. EEOC’s newsroom.

The Hearing Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” guidance:

Outlines how certain pre- and post-job offer disability-related questions can violate the ADA,
Describes easy-to-access technologies that can make providing a reasonable accommodation for a hearing disability free or low-cost,
Addresses employer concerns about safety,
Shares scenarios of potential discrimination;
Adds nformation about discrimination against job applicants and new or updated examples that reflect available technologies,
Clarifies that discrimination may occur when employers act on unfounded assumptions that workers with hearing conditions will cause safety hazards, increase employment costs, or have difficulty communicating, and
Discusses harassment and retaliation.

In announcing the new guidance, EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows warned, “Employers have a legal responsibility to create fair workplaces for all employees and job applicants who need reasonable accommodations,”

These and other developments send a clear warning to employers against failing to accommodate or otherwise discriminating, harassing or retaliating against individuals with hearing or other disabled employees and applicants. Employers should use care to maintain and document their compliance.

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.™

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 EEOC Resource Explains Workplace ADA Requirements For Hearing Impaired | Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination | 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

About the Author

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.™

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

NJ McDonald’s Franchisee Pays $100K For Firing Autistic Employee

December 16, 2022

New Jersey McDonald’s franchisee JDKD Enterprises, L.P will pay $100,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit arising from its termination of an autistic employee filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The lawsuit warns other employers against failing to reasonably accommodate or otherwise discriminating against individuals with autism or other disorders who can perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged JDKD Enterprises fired an employee who worked at several McDonald’s restaurants for 37 years because of his autism spectrum disorder. The employee’s per-formance remained excellent throughout his decade-long employment at the Deptford, New Jersey McDonald’s, receiving numerous awards and accolades acknowledging his excellent job performance. However, two months after JDKD Enterprises, L.P., assumed ownership of this McDonald’s, it abruptly terminated the grill cook.

The EEOC argued the termination of the employee due to his autism disorder violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions based on an individual’s disability or need for accommodations. After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-16441) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,

In addition to paying the former employee $100,000 in monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides for systemic relief intended to prevent further disability discrimination, periodic reporting to the EEOC, and training for all management personnel in responding to reasonable accommodation requests.

“The ADA protects people with autism spectrum disorder, and the EEOC is absolutely committed to aggressively enforcing the ADA requirement that employers reasonably accommodate their workers with disabilities absent undue hardship,” said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office in the EEOC announcement of the settlement.

In the EEOC announcement of the settlement, quotes EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie Williamson as saying, “Ensuring that all employees, especially management, are properly trained regarding their obligations under the ADA – including their duty to engage in good faith, diligent communications with their disabled employees about accommodation needs – is a smart business practice and the right thing to do. Leadership means stewardship of an organization’s most valuable asset – its people.”

The EEOC suit and statements warn other organizations dealing with employees with autistic spectrum or other disabilities not to discriminate and to be prepared to defend the adequacy of their actions regardless of whether choosing to allow or deny accommodation.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has 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 are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. 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. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on NJ McDonald’s Franchisee Pays $100K For Firing Autistic Employee | Accommodation, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Retaliation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Religous Discrimination Suit For Refusing To Exempt Worker Frim COVID Vaccination Warns Other Employers Denying Accommodation Risky

December 15, 2022

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA), a pediatric healthcare system in Georgia, faces a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that charges CHOA violated federal law by firing a maintenance assistant for requesting a religious exemption to its influenza vaccination policy.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits firing an employee because of his religion and requires that employers accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless the employer proves accommodation would impose an undue hardship. EEOC COVID guidance warns employers of the EEOC’s interpretation of the continued applicability of Title VII’s religous accommodation requirements to employers enforcement of COVID and other vaccine mandates. Other related guidance also warns employers to avoid retaliation against employees for expressing religous objections to vaccination policies or engaging in other protected actions in violation of Title VII.

The EEOC’s suit states the maintenance employee, in accordance with CHOA’s procedures, requested a religious exemption to CHOA’s flu vaccination requirements based on sincerely held religious beliefs. CHOA previously granted the employee a religious exemption in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA changed its policy and denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee’s extremely limited interaction with the public or staff.

The EEOC asserts it would not have been an undue burden for CHOA to continue accommodating its employee as it had in 2017 and 2018. However it instead changed its stance on flu vaccination exemptions for this maintenance employee in 2019 and failed to consider any meaningful reasonable accommodations for his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Charging the refusal to grant accommodation arges this alleged conduct violates Title VII, the EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-4953 MLB RDC) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation process. The EEOC lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

The suit against CHOA follows through on the EEOC’s commitment to investigate and enforce Title VII against employees failing to grant exemptions to otherwise applicable COVID or other vaccination requirements to employees with sincerely held religous beliefs against vaccination unless the employer proved undue hardship preventing the accommodation.

The lawsuit warns other employers with vaccination requirements to provide accommodations for employees with deeply held religous beliefs against the vaccine unless the employer can prove undue hardship sufficient to excuse the accommodation. The prosecution of the suit against a health care organization subject to the tightest vaccination and other COVID safety mandates under Centers for Disease Control, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Occuoatiinal Safety & Health Administration regulations demonstrates the high burden the EEOC expects employers refusing accommodation to meet. In light of these EEOC CHOA and other enforcement actions, employers should proceed carefully before refusing accommodation. As COVID and other pandemic and epidemic outbreaks continue to threaten workers, patient, customer and community safety, organizations must tred carefully and be prepared to defend the adequacy of their actions regardless of whether choosing to allow or deny accommodation from applicable communicable disease protocols.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

Comments Off on Hospital Religous Discrimination Suit For Refusing To Exempt Worker Frim COVID Vaccination Warns Other Employers Denying Accommodation Risky | Accommodation, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID, COVID-19, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Employment Termination, enforcement, HR, Human Resources, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, OFCCP, Pandemic, Rehabilitation Act, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Retaliation, 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.™

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

Attorney Filer of ADA Lawsuits Pleads Guilty to Filing False Tax Returns For Not Reporting Disability Lawsuit Settlement Income

November 29, 2022

A California attorney known for his filing of thousands of disability discrimination lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) with himself as the plaintiff plead guilty November 29 to filing a false tax return on which he underreported the income he earned from many of those lawsuits. Aside from the enjoyment many businesses victimized by the defendant’s or other similar disability lawsuits may experience over seeing the defendant get his own comeuppance, the prosecution and the plea also provide important reminders for businesses paying ADA or other settlements to applicants or former employees.

According to court documents and statements made in court, Scott Norris Johnson owned and operated Disabled Access Prevents Injury Inc (DAPI), a legal services corporation. A quadriplegic and an attorney, Johnson filed more than 4,000 lawsuits in the Eastern District of California and elsewhere under the ADA and related California statutes, naming himself as the plaintiff against businesses he claimed were not in compliance with state and federal disability access laws first using DAPI, and later a law firm,

Under the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, payments related to lawsuit settlements or awards are taxable unless paid on account of personal physical injury or physical sickness. Johnson, who worked as an attorney at the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) earlier in his career, was required to report the taxable portion of the lawsuit settlements and awards he received. He nonetheless intentionally underreported this income on his 2012, 2013, and 2014 tax returns. By understating the lawsuit settlements and awards, Johnson and DAPI paid little to no income tax for tax years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Johnson caused a loss to the IRS of more than $250,000.

Johnson is scheduled to be sentenced on March 7, 2023, and faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison for filing a false tax return. He also faces also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The prosecution and subsequent plea highlight the taxability of disability and certain other settlements and the willingness of the Justice Department and IRS to prosecute individuals and businesses failing to fulfill obligations to recognize and report those payments as income for federal tax purposes.

Businesses and their legal counsel entering into settlements or otherwise making payments to employees or applicants under the ADA or other taxable settlements generally should use care to properly report taxable amounts as income to the recipient. For payments made pursuant to a settlement agreement, the settlement agreement generally should provide both that the employer is authorized to deduct and withhold amounts the employer believes may be due from the employee for taxes as well as obligate the employee to report and pay any additional taxes due on the payment.

Obviously, the business also needs to ensure it properly reports and pays its required share of any employment taxes on the payments. Employees should confirm the current tax rules prior to making any agreement or payment to avoid mistakes.

Businesses also should keep in mind many other developments could impact the interpretation and enforcement of settlements and their resulting responsibilities. Changes to trade secret, noncompete, arbitration, voluntariness and other requirements for release of claims, arbitration, scope of release and other developments could materially affect the effectiveness of previously used settlement language. Wise business leaders will seek qualified legal advice and assistance with their settlements.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, please contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

NOTICE: These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has 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 are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. 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. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Attorney Filer of ADA Lawsuits Pleads Guilty to Filing False Tax Returns For Not Reporting Disability Lawsuit Settlement Income | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, government employer, health Care, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Public Policy | Tagged: ADA, Employment Tax, settlement agreements, Tax Fraud | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed Changes To Substance Abuse Confidentiality Rules Could Create New Burdens For Employers & Health Plans

November 28, 2022

January 30 Deadline To Comment On HHS’ Proposed Changes To Substance Use Confidentiality Rules

Employers, their health plans and issuers, substance abuse, mental health and other healthcare providers, health care professional associations, consumer advocates, community organizations, state and local government entities, patients and caregivers and others concerned with mental health and substance abuse treatment and management should review and comment by January 30, 2023 on proposed changes to rules on unauthorized disclosures the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Patient Records under 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”) proposed by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) made public November 28, 2022 here and scheduled for publication in the December 2, 2022 Federal Register. In addition to obvious implications for health care providers and health plans, the proposed changes are likely to impact both the confidentiality requirements for employer-sponsored and other health benefit programs, as well as the ability and responsibilities of businesses seeking to access or use information about prior substance use and abuse in their workplaces or for other legitimate purposes.

Proposed Changes To Substance Abuse Confidentiality Rules

On November 28, 2022, OCR and SAMHSA issued the NPRM to revise the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records regulations at 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”), which seek to address concerns that concerns about discrimination or prosecution might deter people from entering treatment for SUD by protecting “records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States.”(“SUD Records”).

Currently, the Part 2 protections of patient privacy and records concerning treatment related to substance use challenges from unauthorized disclosures differ from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules (“HIPAA”) rules. These distinctions reportedly create barriers to information sharing by patients and among health care providers and create dual obligations and compliance challenges for regulated entities. To address this concern, Congress mandated in Section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) that HHS to bring Part 2 into greater alignment with certain aspects of the HIPAA Privacy rule.

The NPRM seeks to address the CARES Act mandate as Americans and their leaders struggle to continue to provide pathways for victims of substance abuse and other mental health challenges to pursue treatment and maximize their participation and enjoyment in our communities while addressing safety concerns about a growing series of rare but notorious acts of violence committed by certain inadequately diagnosed or managed victims of mental health or substance abuse. See, e.g., Fact Sheet: President Biden To Announce Strategy To Address Our National Mental Health Crisis, As Part Of Unity Agenda In His First State Of The Union; President Biden Releases National Drug Control Strategy to Save Lives, Expand Treatment, and Disrupt Trafficking; Actions Taken by the Biden-⁠Harris Administration to Address Addiction and the Overdose Epidemic; Colorado Springs LGBT Nightclub Shooting Leaves Five Dead and 25 Injured; Virginia Walmart Shooting Gunman “Was Picking People Out,” Witness Says; Opinion: Leaders Blamed the Uvalde Shooting on a Mental Health Crisis. Gun Violence Is Making That Crisis Worse; Nancy Pelosi Husband Attack Suspect David Depape Pleads Not Guilty To Federal Charges.

Amid these challenges, the NPRM proposes to implement this CARES Act mandate through the following changes to Part 2 that HHS says will help safeguard the health and outcomes of individuals with SUD while creating greater flexibility for information sharing envisioned by Congress in its passage of Section 3221 of the CARES Act:

Permit Part 2 programs to use and disclose Part 2 records based on a single prior consent signed by the patient for all future uses and disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations;
Permit the redisclosure of Part 2 records as permitted by the HIPAA Privacy Rule by recipients that are Part 2 programs, HIPAA covered entities, and business associates, with certain exceptions;
Expand prohibitions on the use and disclosure of Part 2 records in civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings conducted by a federal, state, or local authority against a patient, absent a court order or the consent of the patient;
Create two patient rights under Part 2 that align with individual rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
- Right to an accounting of disclosures; and
- Right to request restrictions on disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations;
Require disclosures to the Secretary for enforcement;
Apply HIPAA and HITECH Act civil and criminal penalties to Part 2 violations;
Require Part 2 programs to establish a process to receive complaints of Part 2 violations;
Prohibit Part 2 programs from taking adverse action against patients who file complaints;
Prohibit Part 2 programs from requiring patients to waive the right to file a complaint as a condition of providing treatment, enrollment, payment, or eligibility for services;
Apply the standards in the HITECH Act and the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule to breaches of Part 2 records by Part 2 programs;
Modify the Part 2 confidentiality notice requirements (“Patient Notice”) to align with the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices;
Modify the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices requirements for covered entities who receive or maintain Part 2 records to include a provision limiting redisclosure of Part 2 records for legal proceedings according to the Part 2 standards; and
Permit investigative agencies to apply for a court order to use or disclose Part 2 records after they unknowingly receive Part 2 records while investigating or prosecuting a Part 2 program, when certain preconditions are met.

While the Department is undertaking this rulemaking, the current Part 2 regulations remain in effect. However, once the comment period ends, the Biden Administration-led HHS is expected to finalize the proposed changes quickly. Consequently, in addition to sharing any concerns or other input about the proposed changes during the comment period, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers, community agencies, state and local governments, patients and other caregivers and other concerned parties also should begin planning and preparing to respond to the anticipated changes in the requirements.

Implications For Businesses & Their Health Plans

Businesses should carefully assess the potential implications of the proposed changes on their worker and vendor credentialing and workplace safety practices as well as their health and other benefit programs. Assuming the changes are adopted in their current form, businesses sponsoring health benefit programs generally, and health care organizations and providers specifically should prepare to modify their HIPAA required notices of privacy practices and associated practices to comply with the proposed updates.

Businesses required to comply with Department of Transportation Drug Free Workplace or other alcohol and substance abuse requirements also should consider the potential implications of the proposed changes on their ability to secure relevant substance abuse treatment and related history. In assessing these implications, businesses also should be cognizant of a new proactivity on behalf of certain uses of drugs by workers in the workplace under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). For instance, the EEOC recently has sued Eagle Marine Services Electrical & Refrigeration, LLC for allegedly violating the ADA by refusing to hire or accommodate a worker because he used medication prescribed by his doctor to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) without making any individual assessment of the worker’s medication use or whether it would affect his ability to safely perform the marine electrician position, and instead relied on general stereotypes about disability and medication use to justify its decision not to hire him. Businesses seeking to investigate or deny employment opportunities to workers based on the worker’s past or current medication use will want to use care to ensure that their practices are tailored to defend against similar challenges.

Health plan sponsors and insurers also should assure their mental health and substance abuse treatment coverage documents and practices are defensible under the latest mental health and substance abuse parity mandates of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and coverage requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Along with a host of statutory changes since the original parity mandates took effect, implementing regulations and guidance about non-qualitative limitations and exclusions and heightened agency enforcement are ramping up enforcement and liability risks. In addition to exposing the health plan administrators and other fiduciaries to potential claims denial or fiduciary responsibility claims brought by participants or beneficiaries, the Department of Labor or both, administrative penalties by the EBSA, or both, the MHPAEA mental health and substance abuse parity rules are among 40 federal mandates that when violated can trigger the automatic $100 per violation per day employer excise tax penalty under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D. As a consequence, violations of the MHPAEA are particularly risky and potentially expensive for private employers, their health plans and the plan administrators and fiduciaries that administer it.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, please contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

Comments Off on Proposed Changes To Substance Abuse Confidentiality Rules Could Create New Burdens For Employers & Health Plans | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, government employer, health Care, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Public Policy | Tagged: Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Health Care, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Mental Health, Privacy, substance abuse | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Eased Opiate Prescription Guidelines Could Impact Employers & Health Plans

November 3, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control released updated opiate prescription guidance today, loosening restrictions on prescription of the pain management narcotics under certain conditions.

Ironically the new guidance loosening opiate prescription guidelines comes on the heels of the announcement yesterday of sellements of opiate litigation against CVS and Walgreens brought by multiple states’ seeking to recover states’ costs arising from citizens ‘ addicted to opiates.

Guideline changes are likely to implicate prescribing practices as well as some prescription drug coverages, as well as electronic recordkeeping and prescribing systems.

Among other things, depending on the plan design, the revised restrictions may have implications for prescription drug coverage design and practices. Easing availability even under these new standards also likely will increase access, creating additional concerns for employers and plans about addiction and associated costs. The introduction of potential opportunities for addiction raises particular concerns for health plans and their sponsors because of federal healthcare parity mandates for mental health and substance abuse coverage as well as Biden Administration recently announced expanded expectations of employers to provide accommodation and other changes to welcome individuals impacted by substance-abuse into their workplaces.

Slay tuned for more details about the new guidelines and other health care and life sciences relevant developments.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

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 Eased Opiate Prescription Guidelines Could Impact Employers & Health Plans | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, GINA, health plan, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Per Diem Travel Reimbursement Rate Changing

September 26, 2022

Employers and employees should review and consider adjusting their travel allowance policies beginning October 1 in response to Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Notice 2022-44.

The Notuce announces the special per diem rates effective October 1, 2022, which taxpayers may use to substantiate the amount of expenses for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses when traveling away from home. This notice provides the special transportation industry rate, the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction, and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method.

Rev. Proc. 2019-48 provides the rules for using per diem rates, rather than actual expenses, to substantiate the amount of expenses for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses for travel away from home. Taxpayers who use per diem rates to substantiate the amount of travel expenses under Rev. Proc. 2019-48 may use the federal per diem rates published annually by the General Services Administration. Rev. Proc. 2019-48 allows certain taxpayers to use a special transportation industry rate or to use rates under a high-low substantiation method for certain high-cost localities. The IRS announces these rates and the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction in an annual notice.

Use of a per diem substantiation method is not mandatory. A taxpayer may substantiate actual allowable expenses if the taxpayer maintains adequate records or other sufficient evidence for proper substantiation.

Notice 2022-44 will be in IRB: 2022-41, dated October 11, 2022.

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.™

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 Per Diem Travel Reimbursement Rate Changing | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits | Tagged: Travel expenses | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OFCCP Revises Functional Affirmative Action Program Directive

September 22, 2022

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has revised its existing Functional Affirmative Action Programs (FAAP) Directive. Directive 2013-01, Revision 3 establishes policies and procedures for requesting, modifying, and renewing FAAP agreements.

The revised Directive clarifies procedural requirements, in addition to minor language and formatting changes, Any contractor that enters a FAAP agreement or modifies or renews current agreement on or after the effective date is subject to the revised Directive.

OFCCP encourages the use of FAAPs to enable federal contractors and subcontractors the opportunity to organize affirmative action programs to reflect how the entity operates functionally, rather than where its facilities and employees are physically located. Contractors may find FAAPs provide a more efficient way to organize and analyze affirmative action data, and may also allow the contractor to better tailor initiatives in response to their assessment. Additionally, contractors have the flexibility to utilize both FAAPs and establishment-based AAPs for different parts of their organizations.

Any federal supply and service contractor or subcontractor subject to OFCCP’s jurisdiction may request an agreement that allows for the development and use of a FAAP. l

When a contractor requests a FAAP agreement, the contractor is assigned a dedicated OFCCP FAAP Manager to assist with the process.

FAAP agreements are valid for a period of five years and may be renewed, prior to expiration, if the contractor certifies in writing whether there have been any changes to functional or business units, structure or organization, or other circumstances affecting the existing FAAP agreement.

Additional information, including FAAP FAQs and contact information, is available on OFCCP’s webpage dedicated to the agency’s FAAP program. OFCCP will host a webinar in the near future on FAAPs and to discuss the revised Directive. Contractors who are interested in requesting a FAAP agreement or who have questions regarding their current FAAP agreement may contact the Branch of National Programs at OFCCP_FAAP-UNIT@dol.govor (202) 693-1125.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30+ 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.

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.™

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 Revises Functional Affirmative Action Program Directive | ADA, Affirmative Action, Age Discrimination, Civil Monetary Penalties, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Department of Defense, DFAR, Diversity, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, enforcement, Government Accountability, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, Joint Employer, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Transgender | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ADA May Require Employers To Accommodate Employees Testing Positive For Legally Prescribed Medications

September 22, 2022

A new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit that refusing to hire an applicant for testing positive for legally prescribed medications could violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) under certain circumstances.

The EEOC is suing the Princess Martha senior living residence owned and managed by TJM Properties for allegedly violating the ADA by revoking an applicant’s job offer because of her disability, in a lawsuit filed yesterday.

According to the lawsuit, the applicant, a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), received an offer of employment from Princess Martha conditioned upon a negative drug test. During her interview, the applicant informed her interviewer she was diagnosed with PTSD and was required to take legally-prescribed medications that would cause her drug test to fail. The applicant subsequently took the drug test and received a “non-negative” result. A few days after taking the drug test, the applicant called Princess Martha to check on the status of her hire and again informed the employer her prescription medications would cause a drug test to fail. The next day, the applicant’s job offer was revoked without explanation.

In its complaint in EEOC v. Princess Martha, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-02182) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the EEOC alleges the conduct violates the ADA) prohibitions against discrimination based on disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations of disabilities if it does not cause the company an undue hardship. The EEOC seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent any further discriminatory practices.

The lawsuit reminds other employers and their drug testing, recruiting, staffing and other business partners that a positive drug test does not always justify refusing to hire, firing, or taking other adverse employment action against an applicant or employee. Applicants and employees testing positive for drugs legally taken to treat a medical or physical condition that qualifies as a disability may qualify as disabled individuals entitled to accommodation unless the employer can prove with evidence collected before the action that he accommodation creates an undue hardship, a legitimate safety risk, or would violate the law.

Employees, recruiters and other workforce service providers using drug testing in their hiring or other processes should review and administer their drug testing practices to include appropriate procedures to invite applicants and employees to disclose legally prescribed medications, to use consistent processes to verify the alleged medical need for the medication and its prescribed use, and where verified, to conduct documented evaluations of accommodation options including where applicable evaluations if evidence the employer intends to rely upon to justify denial of accommodation as an undue hardship, for evidence supported safety reasons that can’t be managed through reasonable accommodation without undue hardship, to comply with a legal mandate or another relevant defense to accommodation under the ADA. Employers and they’re agents also must use care to comply with the ADA requirements for maintaining records and information confidential and in separate confidential medical files, as well as comply with otherwise applicable special rules for keeping confidential drug testing and treatment records.

Because unprivileged discussions of potential responses to positive drug tests and other employment decision-making between employers, recruiters, drug testing or other internal or external parties could be discovered and used to show pretext, willfulness, retaliation or other evidence helpful to prove discrimination or retaliation claims by the EEOC, disgruntled applicants or employees or both, employers and other parties participating in drug testing or other related hiring, recruiting or employment decision -making are cautioned to include, understand and follow appropriate procedures engaging qualified legal counsel for seeking advice and to conduct and keep discussions and other evidence and communications relating to drug testing, accommodation and other hiring, discipline, termination and employment matters within the scope of attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege or both.

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.™

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 ADA May Require Employers To Accommodate Employees Testing Positive For Legally Prescribed Medications | Employers, Risk Management, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, ADA, Prescription Drugs, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, EEOC, Employment Discrimination, Accommodation, Disability Discrimination, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, DOT | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.1 Million In DOJ Penalties Show Businesses Risks Of National Origin/Citizenship Discrimination In Job Postings and Other Employment Practices

September 21, 2022

Four more Department of Justice (“DOJ”) settlements announced today warn other businesses against discriminating against non-U.S. citizens by posting job opportunities with discriminatory citizenship status in recruiting or other employment restrictions or practices in violation of Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA). With DOJ’s announcements today, DOJ now has recovered more than $1.1 million from 20 employers accused of illegally posting job opportunities with unlawful citizenship restrictions on college job recruiting platforms while continuing investigations of possible violations by other employers.

National Origin & Citizenship Discrimination Prohibited

The INA generally prohibits employers and recruiters from limiting jobs based on citizenship or immigration status unless required by a law, regulation, executive order or government contract. The INA protects U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, refugees, asylees, and recent lawful permanent residents from citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing and recruitment or referral for a fee.

The Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA. The statute prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin in hiring, firing or recruitment or referral for a fee; unfair documentary practices; and retaliation and intimidation. Violators also can face civil damage awards from private lawsuits brought by applicants for these violations.

Lik DOJ’s recent settlements with 16 other companies announced last June, the four settlements announced today began after a Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) student, who was a lawful permanent resident at the time, filed a discrimination complaint with the Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section. The student’s complaint alleged that Capital One Bank restricted a paid internship opportunity only to U.S. citizens when it posted the job on a Georgia Tech job recruitment platform. DOJ’s investigation revealed dozens of facially discriminatory advertisements employers posted on Georgia Tech’s job recruiting platform as well as other platforms operated by colleges across the United States.

DOJ’s investigation of the postings of the employers involved in today’s settlements found that each of the four companies posted at least one job announcement excluding non-U.S. citizens on an online job recruitment platform operated by Georgia Tech. Three of the companies — CarMax, Axis Analytics and Capital One Bank — also posted discriminatory advertisements on other college job platforms. DOJ determined that the advertisements deterred qualified students from applying for jobs because of their citizenship status, and in many cases the citizenship status restrictions also blocked students from applying or even meeting with company recruiters.

The new settlements require the four companies — CarMax, Axis Analytics LLC (aka Axis Group), Capital One Bank and Walmart — to pay a total of $331,520 in civil penalties, depending on the number of discriminatory advertisements they posted. CarMax will pay $186,480; Axis Analytics will pay $53,872; Capital One Bank will pay $49,728; and Walmart will pay $41,440. In addition to paying civil penalties, the four employers must also require their recruiting staff to undergo training on their obligations under the INA anti-discrimination provision and to refrain from including specific citizenship or immigration status designations in their campus job postings unless the restrictions are required by law. They will also ensure that their other recruiting practices and policies comply with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.

“With these four new settlements, the department has now held 20 companies accountable this year for hiring discrimination against students based on their citizenship status,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to enforcing the law to ensure that job seekers — including lawful permanent residents, U.S. nationals, asylees and refugees — are not unlawfully excluded from job opportunities for which they are qualified.”

The DOJ enforcement actions and penalties remind other businesses to avoid placing prohibited citizenship restrictions in advertisements and job postings as well as to avoid other prohibited discrimination in recruiting and other hiring and employment practices. Businesses are urged to review their job postings and other recruiting documents policies and practices and those used by recruiting, staffing and other Human resources business partners for potentially prohibited language and conduct as well as to include appropriate compliance language in job postings, policies and workforce recruiting and other services agreements.

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.™

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 $1.1 Million In DOJ Penalties Show Businesses Risks Of National Origin/Citizenship Discrimination In Job Postings and Other Employment Practices | apprenticeship, citizenship, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, government employer, h-2A Visa, Human Resources, I-9, Joint Employer, national origin, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Race Discrimination, Retaliation, Training | 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 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.™

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

Join 9/8 JCEB Webex To Learn About DOJ Federal Antitrust Health Industry Market Competition Enforcement & Latest On $2.67 Billion BCBS Class Action Antitrust Settlement

September 2, 2022

As companies that purchased health insurance and their employees or other individuals who received health insurance from certain Blue Cross Blue Shield entities wait to hear how to claim their share of the $2.67 billion In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation private federal class action civil antitrust lawsuit settlement (“Settlement”) finally approved August 9, 2022 against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”) and other settling individual Blue Cross Plans, employers and other plan sponsors, health care systems and providers, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, brokerages, and other health and health insurance market participants need to keep in mind that the private antitrust judgements are not their only exposure under federal antitrust laws. Health insurance and health industry market participants that engage in anticompetitive conduct or business transactions also risk investigation and prosecution under federal antitrust laws by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and state regulators or attorneys general.

Market participants and others with health or health insurance industry market competitiveness concerns or interests should register and attend the September 8, 2022 Justice Department Health Industry Antitrust Enforcement Update to learn about key federal antitrust statutes regulating or prohibiting anticompetitive conduct and business transactions and hear how the Department of Justice uses these laws to promote market competition in the health care and health insurance marketplaces.

Hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the webinar will feature a discussion by U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Healthcare and Consumer Products Section Antitrust Attorney Natalie Melada of basic federal antitrust rules and principles the Justice Department relies upon to safeguard market competitiveness and discusses selected Justice Department antitrust litigation and other compliance and enforcement initiatives the Department of Justice has undertaken to protect competition in the healthcare industry. Attorney and Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer also will provide an update on the In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation and resulting $2.67 billion settlement approved August 9.

For more details and to register for the program, see here.

More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and following 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

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 experience includes substantial work, publications and presentations on health care, health and managed care, employee plan and purchasing groups, noncompetition and other antitrust compliance 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.™

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 considering 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 Join 9/8 JCEB Webex To Learn About DOJ Federal Antitrust Health Industry Market Competition Enforcement & Latest On $2.67 Billion BCBS Class Action Antitrust Settlement | Antitrust, Brokers, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health Plans, Insurance, Non-Competition Agreement, Public Policy | Tagged: Antitrust, Business Groups, Department of Justice, Employee Benefits, Group Purchasing Organizations, Health Care Competition, Health Care Consolidation, Health Insurer, Health Plan, In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Travis Nicholson Named New EEOC Dallas District Director

September 2, 2022

Travis Nicholson is taking over as the new Dallas District Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC announced Nicholson’s appointment to head up the Dallas District on August 30,2022.

As Director of the Dallas District Nicholson will oversee and manage the EEOC’s work in more than 200 counties in north, central, and west Texas, including the district office and its approximately 100 employees. He will also supervise the EEOC’s work with several of the agency’s state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies that work with the EEOC on employment discrimination in Texas. A former compliance officer with the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs U.S. Army veteran, Nicholson began his career with the EEOC in 2009 as a bilingual investigator in its Detroit Field Office, investigating charges, including systemic and class matters, and conducting outreach to underserved communities and in line with the agency’s Youth at Work initiative. He then served as the Charlotte District Office’s outreach and education coordinator and a program analyst in the Office of Field Programs before becoming Houston’s deputy director in 2017. As the deputy district director in Houston, Nicholson was responsible for day-to-day operations and led process improvements and efficiencies in charge management, systemic investigations, and legal enforcement interaction

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.™

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 Travis Nicholson Named New EEOC Dallas District Director | ADA, adea, Affirmative Action, Age Discrimination, Civil Rights, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, CROWN Act, Department of Defense, DFAR, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Disease Management, Diversity, Drug & Alcohol, EEOC, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, enforcement, English As A Second Language, Executive Compensation, Government Contractors, health benefit, Health Benefits, HR, Human Resources, LBGT, LEP, LGBT, Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, OFCCP, Public Accommodation, Race Discrimination, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, third party administrators, tpa, Transgender, Union, USERRA, Workforce | Tagged: ADA, adea, civil rights, compliance, Dallas, EEOC, Employer, employment discrimination, employment law, enforcement, government contractor, Leadership, National Origin Discrimination, OFCCP, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Texas | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

AHRQ Mental Health Mobile Apps Selection Tips

July 6, 2022

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) issued a brief called “Evaluation of Mental Health Mobile Applications” to help healthcare experts pick out mental health mobile health applications. Along with choosing mental Health applications and other health plan mental health benefit design, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers also must ensure their overall plan design and all features comply with federal mental health parity mandates.

The report covers three areas: risk and mitigation strategies, functions, and mental health app features.

AHRQ hopes the tips will help providers, patients, and payers in selecting mental health mobile applications and seeking the best fit based on various features.

The report is part of a growing list of resources and enforcement efforts federal and state agencies have initiated over the past year as part of growing concerns about mental health.

Along with educational outreach and tools, the Employee Benefit Security Administration and Department of Health and Human Services also are ratcheting up audits and enforcement of federal mental health parity mandates. Given this heightened scrutiny, employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers using mobile applications or other virtual mental health solutions in their health plans should arrange for a compliance review of their health plan compliance with these mandates within the scope of attorney client privilege to mitigate liability risks.

In a recent American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits webinar moderated by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, the EBSA’s Director of Health Plan Compliance and Enforcement Amber Rivers emphasized her agency is prioritizing mental health parity compliance a free recent audits showed widespread noncompliance with the requirement for parity in nonqualitative mental health conditions.

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

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, well-known for her extensive work with health and other employee benefits, health care and life sciences, insurance, financial services, technology, and other highly regulated and performance reliant organizations and their leadership, Ms. Stamer works with these and other businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, insurers, health care and life sciences, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of health care, 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. her more than 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a practicing attorney, as well as as an industry, policy management consultant, and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations. Examples of her many leadership involvements include service as the Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; Vice Chair of the ABA International Law Section Life Sciences and Health Committee; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee and former Vice Chair of its Employee Benefits Committee and its Worker’s Compensation Commitee; 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, current Welfare Committee Co-Chair and 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; 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 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.™

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.

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.

©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 AHRQ Mental Health Mobile Apps Selection Tips | ACA, Association Health Plan, Data Breach, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Government Accountability, government employer, government plan, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, Joint Employer, Protected Health Information, self insured health plan, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Contractors Should Check If On OFCCP List Of Contractors Facing Compliance Review

May 20, 2022

Federal supply & service contractors should check the new Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Corporate Scheduling Announcement List (CSAL) to see if their organization is among the 400 federal contractors and subcontractors selected for Compliance Review.

The CSAL released today is a courtesy notification to contractors selected for a Compliance Review (Establishment Review), Corporate Management Compliance Evaluation, or Functional Affirmative Action Program Review. The review will start once the contractor receives OFCCP’s Office of Management and Budget approved scheduling letter.

OFCCP has published the methodology for developing this list as well as frequently asked questions where answers to other matters related to this topic are included.

Contractors facing these reviews should begin preparing for the audit in anticipation of receipt of their scheduling letter by conducting their own compliance review within the scope of attorney=client privilege before the audit and working with qualified legal counsel to use OFCCP compliance assistance options and technical assistance to prepare for the evaluation.

These preparations should begin with an assessment whether any grounds exist for challenging the contractor’s selection for the audit under the applicable criteria. If a contractor believes it should not be selected for evaluation, OFCCP should be contacted promptly.

Whether or not a contractor is on the list of contractors selected for Compliance Review, every contractor should take documented steps to review and reconfirm their continuing compliance including new data security and other standards and requirements recently put in place, prioritized for review and enforcement or both.

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.™

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 Contractors Should Check If On OFCCP List Of Contractors Facing Compliance Review | Affirmative Action, American Rescue Plan Act, apprentisship, board of directors, Brokers, Child Labor, Civil Rights, compensation, compliance, conflict of interest, Construction, Corporate Compliance, CROWN Act, Data Security, Department of Defense, DFAR, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, Government Contractors, health Care, Public Accommodation, Public Policy, Race Discrimination, Rehabilitation Act | Tagged: compliance, Employer, government contractor, OFCCP | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Emotional Injury Damages Not Recoverable In Private Rehabilitation Act or Affordable Care Act Disability Discrimination Lawsuits

May 2, 2022

Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce the disability discrimination and accommodation requirements of either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) according to the May 1, 2022 United States Supreme Court ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller authored by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

The Cummings decision resulted from a suit that sought emotional distress damages brought by filed by a deaf and legally blind woman, Jane Cummings against Premier Rehab Keller after it denied her request that it provide an American Sign Language interpreter at her physical therapy sessions. Premier Rehab told Cummings the therapist could communicate with her through other means, Claiming Premier Rehab’s failure to provide an ASL interpreter constituted discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehab Act and Section 1557 of the ACA, Cummings sued Premier Rehab seeking various damages and other relief, including emotional distress damages.

The Supreme Court took notice that Premier Rehab was subject to these laws because its receipt of Medicare and Medicaid payments qualified as federal financial assistance triggering their applicability.

The Supreme Court affirmed the previous District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehab Act or the ACA.

The Supreme Court Majority based its decision on its finding that the Rehab Act and Act both are spending statutes that condition their offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate creating what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds. Following previously established Supreme Court precedent for “private spending clause actions,” the Court ruled the emotional distress or other remedy is not available unless “the funding recipient is on notice that by accepting federal funding, it exposes itself to liability of that nature.”

To decide whether emotional distress damages are available under the Spending Clause statutes in this case, the Court therefore asked if a prospective funding recipient deciding whether to accept
federal funds would have had “clear notice” regarding that liability. Because the two statutes are silent on the availability of emotional injury damages, the Supreme Court followed prior precedent by looking to whether the emotional damages sought by Cummings were the type of damages traditionally available in suits for breach of contract so as to put Premier Rehab and other defendants on notice of their exposure to such damages from actions under the Rehab Act or ACA. While acknowledging some exceptional circumstances where punitive damages may be recovered where “the conduct constituting the breach is also a tort for which punitive damages are recoverable,” the Court found such damages “are generally not available for breach of contract.” Concluding that the recognized exception to the general rule was insufficient to give funding recipients the requisite notice that they could face such damages. the Supreme Court ruled that funding recipients under the Rehab Act and the ACA “have not, merely by accepting funds, implicitly consented to liability for punitive damages.”

To read the full Majority opinion and related consenting and dissenting opinions, see here.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling means private litigants cannot recover emotional injury damages in discrimination actions brought to enforce the Rehabilitation Act or the ACA, health industry and other organizations remain subject to other substantial liability risks for improper discrimination in violation of those laws. Beyond recoveries for actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable by private litigants, covered organizations also can face substantial civil monetary penalties, program disqualification, in some instances even False Claims Act liability for billing in violation of program conditions of participation and other risks. As federal agencies continue to make enforcement of these sanctions a priority, organization covered by either of these laws should use care to maintain appropriate compliance and risk management to ensure their ability to defend against any potential charges.

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.™

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 Emotional Injury Damages Not Recoverable In Private Rehabilitation Act or Affordable Care Act Disability Discrimination Lawsuits | ACA, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, CROWN Act, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, health Care, Public Accommodation, Public Policy, Race Discrimination, Rehabilitation Act | Tagged: chris rock, CROWN Act, Employer, hair shaming, Jada Pinkett Smith, Management, National Origin Discrimination, Race Discrimination, will smith | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment To OCR By 6/6 To Help Shape How OCR Implements HITECH Act Recognized Security Practices Standards For Purposes Of Setting Civil Monetary Penalties Under HIPAA Security Rules.

April 29, 2022

June 6, 2022 is the deadline for health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other business associates and others to provide input to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that OCR says it seeks to help shape how it defines and implements the “recognized security standards” requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act), as amended in 2021 for purposes of its administration and enforcement of civil monetary penalty and other provisions of of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“”HIPAA”). The regulatory and enforcement decisions that OCR makes could significantly impact the civil monetary penalty liability, compliance, audit and recordkeeping responsibilities that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) face under the HIPAA Security and Breach Notification Rules.

OCR is inviting public input on two issues under the OCR Request for Information on Considerations for Implementing the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, as Amended (RFI) released April 6, 2022:

The definition and administration of the “recognized security practice” factor the HITECH Act requires OCR to consider when assessing audit results, civil monetary penalty and settlement amounts and other HIPAA Security and Breach Rule enforcement; and
The rules that OCR will follow to determine when and how OCR will share portions of amounts it receives from civil monetary penalties or settlements with individuals harmed by breaches of electronic protected health information,

Recognized Security Practices

Section 13412 of the HITECH Act requires HHS to take into consideration certain recognized security practices of covered entities (health plans, health care clearinghouses, and most health care providers) and business associates1 when determining potential fines, audit results, or other remedies for resolving potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule pursuant to an investigation, compliance review, or audit.

A primary goal of the requirement, which took effect January 5, 2021, is to encourage covered entities and business associates to do “everything in their power to safeguard patient data.”

The RFI solicits comment on how covered entities and business associates are implementing “recognized security practices,” how they anticipate adequately demonstrating that recognized security practices are in place, and any implementation issues they would like OCR to clarify through future guidance or rulemaking.

Civil Money Penalty (CMP) and Settlement Sharing

Section 13410(c)(3) of the HITECH Act requires HHS to establish by regulation a methodology under which an individual harmed by a potential violation of the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and/or Breach Notification Rules may receive a percentage of any CMP or monetary settlement collected with respect to that offense.

Section 13140(d)(1) of HITECH requires that OCR base determinations of appropriate penalty amounts on the nature and extent of the violation and the nature and extent of the harm resulting from such violation. The HITECH Act does not define “harm,” nor does it provide direction to aid HHS in defining the term.

The RFI solicits public comment on the types of harms that should be considered in the distribution of CMPs and monetary settlements to harmed individuals, discusses potential methodologies for sharing and distributing monies to harmed individuals, and invites the public to submit alternative methodologies.

Comments Due 6/6

Health plan and other Covered Entity input could significantly impact how OCR implements and administers these two important aspects of the HIPAA Security Rule going forward. As these decisions are likely to significantly impact the policies, practices, recordkeeping, breach investigation and other obligations that Covered Entities would need to meet in the event of an audit, breach or other investigation or enforcement, timely, thoughtful input from all Covered Entities and affected stakeholders is important. In addition, its decisions on how to distribute CMPs.

For more information about the RFI or instructions for submitting comments, see here.

Health Plan Security & Breach Exposures Beyond HIPAA

Beyond the significant exposures health plans and their business associates may face under HIPAA, recent Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) guidance also signals growing risks for health plans and their fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. See e.g., HIPAA & ERISA Fiduciary Rules Drive Imperative To Protect Health Plan Data & Systems From Hacking & Other Cyber Threats.

These are just some of the emerging health plan compliance risks and responsibilities that health plan, their fiduciaries, sponsors, administrators, service providers and insurers need to watch and manage. Amber M. Rivers, Director of the Employee Benefit Security Administration Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance will discuss these and other risks during the “Department of Labor Health Plan Compliance and Enforcement Update” at a virtual program hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits from Noon to 1:30 p.m. Central Time on May 5, 2022 to be moderated by Solutions Law Press, Inc. author and publisher, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will moderate the program.

For additional information about or to register for this program, see here.

More Information.

About the Author

As part of these involvements, Ms. Stamer is scheduled to moderate the discussion of “Department of Labor Health Plan Compliance and Enforcement Update” with Amber M. Rivers, Director of the Employee Benefit Security Administration Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance that the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits is hosting on May 5, 2022. For additional information about or to register for this program, see here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Comment To OCR By 6/6 To Help Shape How OCR Implements HITECH Act Recognized Security Practices Standards For Purposes Of Setting Civil Monetary Penalties Under HIPAA Security Rules. | ACA, Association Health Plan, Data Breach, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Government Accountability, government employer, government plan, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, HIPAA, Joint Employer, Protected Health Information, self insured health plan, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Exchange Enrollment Reaches All Time High

April 26, 2022

The Health Insurance Marketplaces 2022 Open Enrollment Report (“Report”) published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last month reveals the 2022 Open Enrollment Period (“2022 OEP”) produced the highest enrollment in health care marketplace plans since passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) 12 years ago.

A review of the data reveals a number of possible explanations for the increased enrollment including but not limited to Biden Administration emphasis on outreach, the expansion of the enrollment period and availability of subsidies, and more. Businesses sponsoring health plans, insurers and other payers, government and community leaders, taxpayers and other others may wish to evaluate this data and these implications further to assess their short term and long term implications on their health plan concerns and existing and proposed practices, governmental policy proposals and other planning considerations.

Reported Key Findings

The Report found that 14.5 million consumers selected or automatically re-enrolled in marketplace health care coverage through HealthCare.gov during the 2022 OEP, 2.5 million more consumers than signed up for marketplace coverage during the 2021 OEP. This reflects a 21 percent increase in enrollment over 2021 OEP enrollment.

Other findings highlighted in the Report include the following:

In HealthCare.gov states, 10.3 million consumers enrolled in health coverage during the 2022 OEP between November 1, 2021 and January 15, 2022.
Across the 18 SBMs, 4.3 million enrollees signed up for health coverage during the 2022 OEP from November 1, 2021 through the end of their respective reporting periods.
Nationwide, the number of new consumers signing up for Marketplace coverage during the 2022 OEP increased by 20 percent, to 3.1 million, from 2.5 million in the 2021 OEP.
Among consumers who attested to a race or ethnicity, 19 percent identified as Hispanic/Latino in the 2022 OEP, compared to 18 percent in the 2021 OEP, and the percent of consumers with a known race or ethnicity who identified as Black increased to 9 percent in the 2022 OEP, from 8 percent in the 2021 OEP.
Nationwide, 2.8 million more consumers are receiving APTC in 2022 compared to 2021. Additionally, 1.1 million consumers reported household incomes over 400% FPL during the 2022 OEP, who would not have been eligible for APTC without the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The average monthly premium after APTC fell by 19 percent, from $164 in 2021 to $133 in 2022, and 28 percent of consumers selected a plan for $10 or less per month after APTC during the 2022 OEP.
The percentage of all Marketplace consumers who received costsharing reductions (CSRs) increased slightly from the 2021 OEP to the 2022 OEP, from 47 percent to 49 percent, respectively.
The average monthly 2022 premium for HealthCare.gov enrollees was $111. If consumers had not received the additional APTC provided by the ARP, the average monthly premium after APTC for HealthCare.gov consumers would have been 53 percent higher, or $170.

The Report findings summarize data about health plan selections through the individual Marketplaces during the 2022 2022 OEP and includes OEP data for the 33 states with Marketplaces that use the HealthCare.gov eligibility and enrollment platform for the 2022 plan year (HealthCare.gov states), as well as for the 18 State-based Marketplaces (SBMs) that use their own eligibility and enrollment platforms. For purposes of the Report, the 2022 OEP for the Health Insurance Marketplaces ran between November 1, 2021 and January 15, 2021 for the 33 states that used HealthCare.gov. For the 18 State-based Marketplace (SBMs) states using their own platforms, the reporting period reflects plan selection and Marketplace activity from the beginning of OE on November 1, 2021, to the end of each SBM’s respective OEP and any run-out period. Any renewals processed before November 1, 2021, are also included.

Data Underlying Report

For those interested in evaluating the 2022 OEP enrollment results and trends, CMS has prepared a number of Public Use Files (PUFs) summarizing plan selection activity during the applicable OEPs in more detail including:

2022 OEP State-Level Public Use File: The state-level PUF includes total health plan selections in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The PUF provides state-level data on metrics such as average monthly premium, financial assistance, age, gender, metal level, self-reported race and ethnicity, rural location, household income as a percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and plan switching behavior among consumers with a plan selection. In addition, the state-level PUF includes data on dental plan selections and Basic Health Plan (BHP) enrollments. Certain data elements are only available for the 33 HC.gov states in 2022.
2022 OEP State, Metal Level, and Enrollment Status Public Use File: The state, metal level, and enrollment status PUF contains data with stratifications by state, metal level and enrollment status. It includes total health plan selections in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and state, metal level, and enrollment status-level data on enrollment status, average monthly premium, financial assistance, age, gender, self-reported race and ethnicity, rural location, metal level, and household income as percent FPL. Certain data elements are only available for the 33 HC.gov states in 2022.
2022 OEP County-Level Public Use File: The county-level PUF includes total health plan selections, as well as data such as average monthly premium, financial assistance, age, gender, metal level, self-reported race and ethnicity, household income as a percent of the FPL, and plan switching behavior. In addition, the county-level PUF includes data on dental plan selections. This PUF only includes data for consumers with a plan selection in the 33 states that used the HC.gov platform in 2022.
2022 OEP ZIP Code-Level Public Use File: The ZIP code-level PUF includes total health plan selections, the count of consumers with APTC, and average APTC among consumers with APTC. This PUF only includes data for consumers with a plan selection in the 33 states that used the HC.gov platform in 2022.
2022 OEP Snapshot Public Use File: The Snapshot PUF presents data that CMS released during the 2022 OEP. It includes total health plan selections, including a breakdown of new and returning consumers, consumers on submitted applications, call center volume, and website usage. State-level health plan selection counts are also included.
Supplemental HC.gov Data: Data on availability and plan selections of Health Savings Account (HSA)-eligible plans and average and median deductibles of plans selected during the 2014-2022

To access these data files, see here.

Amber M. Rivers, Director of the Employee Benefit Security Administration Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance will discuss “Department of Labor Health Plan Compliance and Enforcement Update” at a virtual program hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits from Noon to 1:30 p.m. Central Time on May 5, 2022. Solutions Law Press, Inc. author and publisher Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will moderate the program.

During the program, Ms. Rivers will the provide updates on the health plan eligibility, COVID emergency orders, surprise billing, mental health parity and other Department of Labor regulatory, compliance, audit, enforcement priorities and other health plan projects and developments.

For additional information about or to register for this program, see here.

More Information.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Exchange Enrollment Reaches All Time High | ACA, Association Health Plan, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Government Accountability, government employer, government plan, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, self insured health plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2022 ACA Marketplace Open Enrollment Up 21% Over 2021 Open Enrollment

April 26, 2022

Reported Key Findings

Other findings highlighted in the Report include the following:

In HealthCare.gov states, 10.3 million consumers enrolled in health coverage during the 2022 OEP between November 1, 2021 and January 15, 2022.
Across the 18 SBMs, 4.3 million enrollees signed up for health coverage during the 2022 OEP from November 1, 2021 through the end of their respective reporting periods.
Nationwide, the number of new consumers signing up for Marketplace coverage during the 2022 OEP increased by 20 percent, to 3.1 million, from 2.5 million in the 2021 OEP.
Among consumers who attested to a race or ethnicity, 19 percent identified as Hispanic/Latino in the 2022 OEP, compared to 18 percent in the 2021 OEP, and the percent of consumers with a known race or ethnicity who identified as Black increased to 9 percent in the 2022 OEP, from 8 percent in the 2021 OEP.
Nationwide, 2.8 million more consumers are receiving APTC in 2022 compared to 2021. Additionally, 1.1 million consumers reported household incomes over 400% FPL during the 2022 OEP, who would not have been eligible for APTC without the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The average monthly premium after APTC fell by 19 percent, from $164 in 2021 to $133 in 2022, and 28 percent of consumers selected a plan for $10 or less per month after APTC during the 2022 OEP.
The percentage of all Marketplace consumers who received costsharing reductions (CSRs) increased slightly from the 2021 OEP to the 2022 OEP, from 47 percent to 49 percent, respectively.
The average monthly 2022 premium for HealthCare.gov enrollees was $111. If consumers had not received the additional APTC provided by the ARP, the average monthly premium after APTC for HealthCare.gov consumers would have been 53 percent higher, or $170.

Data Underlying Report

2022 OEP State-Level Public Use File: The state-level PUF includes total health plan selections in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The PUF provides state-level data on metrics such as average monthly premium, financial assistance, age, gender, metal level, self-reported race and ethnicity, rural location, household income as a percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and plan switching behavior among consumers with a plan selection. In addition, the state-level PUF includes data on dental plan selections and Basic Health Plan (BHP) enrollments. Certain data elements are only available for the 33 HC.gov states in 2022.
2022 OEP State, Metal Level, and Enrollment Status Public Use File: The state, metal level, and enrollment status PUF contains data with stratifications by state, metal level and enrollment status. It includes total health plan selections in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and state, metal level, and enrollment status-level data on enrollment status, average monthly premium, financial assistance, age, gender, self-reported race and ethnicity, rural location, metal level, and household income as percent FPL. Certain data elements are only available for the 33 HC.gov states in 2022.
2022 OEP County-Level Public Use File: The county-level PUF includes total health plan selections, as well as data such as average monthly premium, financial assistance, age, gender, metal level, self-reported race and ethnicity, household income as a percent of the FPL, and plan switching behavior. In addition, the county-level PUF includes data on dental plan selections. This PUF only includes data for consumers with a plan selection in the 33 states that used the HC.gov platform in 2022.
2022 OEP ZIP Code-Level Public Use File: The ZIP code-level PUF includes total health plan selections, the count of consumers with APTC, and average APTC among consumers with APTC. This PUF only includes data for consumers with a plan selection in the 33 states that used the HC.gov platform in 2022.
2022 OEP Snapshot Public Use File: The Snapshot PUF presents data that CMS released during the 2022 OEP. It includes total health plan selections, including a breakdown of new and returning consumers, consumers on submitted applications, call center volume, and website usage. State-level health plan selection counts are also included.
Supplemental HC.gov Data: Data on availability and plan selections of Health Savings Account (HSA)-eligible plans and average and median deductibles of plans selected during the 2014-2022

To access these data files, see here.

More Information.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on 2022 ACA Marketplace Open Enrollment Up 21% Over 2021 Open Enrollment | ACA, Association Health Plan, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Government Accountability, government employer, government plan, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, self insured health plan | 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.

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.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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