Non-Compete |

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

November 10, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

Konica Minolta Litigation Challenges Denial of Severance Following Office Relocation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrangements Subject To ERISA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ERISA Requires Written Plan Document and More

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

Written Plan Documents and Clear Eligibility Provisions

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

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

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

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

Fiduciary Responsibilities and Prudent Plan Administration

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

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

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

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

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

Benefit Claims and Appeals Procedures

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

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

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

Summary Plan Descriptions, Disclosures, and Reporting

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

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

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

Enforcement, Benefit Claims, and Fiduciary Liability

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

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

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

Employers and Business Leaders May Pay High Cost For Bungled Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

Practical Steps Employers Should Take Now

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

For Help or More Information

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

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

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

About the Author

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press™

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

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

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

Identity Theft Scan Targets Employee Tax Records

December 7, 2018

The Internal Revenue Service is warning human resources and other business leaders about a growing wave of identity theft and W-2 scams targeting sensitive tax data employers collect on their employees. The warning highlights one of the many growing data breach exposures businesses must manage as identity thieves become ever more sophisticated.

Such data like Form W-2 data – is highly valued by identity thieves. While identity thieves use a variety of tactics to steal this information including hacking into the IRS’ own systems, the IRS this week is warning about one scheme that the IRS says has become one of the more dangerous email scams.

All employers are targets for the W-2 scam, according to the IRS.

Here’s how it works:

These emails appear to be from an executive or organization leader to a payroll or human resources employee.
The message usually starts with a simple greeting, like: “Hey, you in today?”
By the end of the email exchange, all of an organization’s Forms W-2 for their employees may be in the hands of cybercriminals.
Because payroll officials believe they are corresponding with an executive, it may take weeks for someone to realize a data theft has occurred.
Generally, the criminals are trying to quickly take advantage of their theft, sometimes filing fraudulent tax returns a day or two.

The IRS warns this scam is such a threat to taxpayers that a special IRS reporting process has been established. The IRS says employers victimized should:

Email dataloss@irs.gov to notify the IRS of a W-2 data loss and provide contact information. In the subject line, type “W2 Data Loss” so that the email can be routed properly. The business should not attach any employee personally identifiable information data.
Email the Federation of Tax Administrators at StateAlert@taxadmin.org to get information on how to report victim information to the states.
File a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. Businesses and payroll service providers may be asked to file a report with their local law enforcement agency.
Notify employees. The employee may then take steps to protect themselves from identity theft. The Federal Trade Commission’s www.identitytheft.govprovides guidance on general steps employees should take.
Forward the scam email to phishing@irs.gov.

The IRS also recommends the following resources:

Taxes. Security. Together.

Publication 4524

Protect Your Clients; Protect Yourself

Tax Security 101

The IRS alert reminds businesses again about the growing challenges they face guarding sensitive tax, health and other employee benefit plan and other data about employees, customers, business partners and others. Aside from the disruptions businesses incur to organizations and relationships with employees, customers, business partners or others and often tremendous costs of investigation and mitigation, breaches also commonly trigger substantial legal liability under a myriad of federal and state laws and regulations, contracts, and common law tort claims. Businesses generally and Human Resources, tax and other systems and operations should take well documented steps to prevent and prepare for a potential breach.

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 30+ years of management focused employment, employee benefit and insurance, workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

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 and author of “What To Do When Your Employee’s Personal Life Becomes Your Business@ and a multitude of other highly regarded works on data protection and breach, her work includes career-long, leading edge involvement counseling and representing human resources, employee benefit, insurance and financial, tax, healthcare and other businesses about data and other sensitive information privacy and breach.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; and other private and government organizations and their management leaders.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, heavily involved in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. She regularly helps employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of labor and employment, compensation and benefits, internal controls and compliance, and risk management matters 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 thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); 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, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here 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 here such as the following:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice 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 advise or 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.

©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Identity Theft Scan Targets Employee Tax Records | ADA, Attorney-Client Privilege, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, directors, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Educational Privacy, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Government Contractors, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Non-Compete, Non-compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Protected Health Information, Retail, Tax, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs

December 5, 2017

The Justice Department’s report Tuesday that the Justice Department spent $3.2 million on Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe its first four-and-a-half months highlights the importance for leaders accountable for their organizations’s Federal Sentencing Guideline, sexual harassment and other corporate compliance programs to appropriately plan and budget for potential investigation and defense costs as part of their compliance and risk management planning.

Conducting an internal investigation or defending a government or other allegation of wrongdoing often proves surprisingly expensive. While how much an internal investigation costs can vary widely depending on the issue, its potential civil and criminal liability and public relations implications on the organization and its management, it’s timing, the adequacy of the pre-event compliance management and record keeping relating to the issue, and a host of other concerns, investigation and defense costs often become largely irrelevant when an organization is required to investigate or defend against charges of legal or other business misconduct that expose the organization or its leadership to potentially devastating legal or business consequences. When these events happen, organizations and their leaders often see little option to spend whatever is necessary to defend their organization and its reputation.

Compared to the reported internal investigation and defense expenditures of private sector organizations that have faced these these make or break investigations, the Justice Department’s reported expenditures to date on the Russian probe look small.

For instance, Twenty-First Century Fox in March, 2017 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings disclosed spending $45 million tied to litigation related to harassment allegations in the 9 first three quarters of 2017 and $10 million “related to settlements of pending and potential litigations” during its fiscal third quarter as well as having received investigative inquiries and stockholder demands to inspect the books and records of the company which could lead to future litigation in the aftermath of sexual harassment allegations at Fox News.

In contrast, Avon Products spent nearly $500 million conducting its internal investigation before paying a $135m fine to the US government to settle charges it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by giving Chinese authorities $8 million in gifts and cash while it sought to obtain the first “direct sell” license in China.

These and other publicly disclosed expenditures make clear that corporate officers and directors need to reassess their investment in compliance both to strengthen the effectiveness of their efforts and to plan to deal with the financial, legal, operational and other costs of investigating and defending potential charges.

Aboaut 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 management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.

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, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, 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, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

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

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

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

DOL Announces $40M in Hurricane Unemployment Help

Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies.

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

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, 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.

©2017 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 Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs | ADA, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Brokers, Child Labor, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Data Breach, Data Security, directors, E-Verify, EEOC, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, English As A Second Language, ERISA, Executive Compensation, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, FICA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Financial Security, FINRA, FLSA, GINA, Government Contractors, h-2A Visa, health benefit, health plan, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, LEP, LGBT, Management, Managment, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Nonresident aliens, occupational safety, OFCCP, officers, OSHA, Overtime, Pay, Plan Admistrator, Privacy, Professional Liability, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Uncategorized, USERRA, VEVRRA, visas, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017

November 20, 2017

Hiring enough qualified workers to fill demand is the key challenges US manufacturing companies face amid an increasingly healthy manufacturing outlook.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) reports that United States manufacturers generally report feeling optimistic about their own business opportunities as well as the US economy generally heading into the fourth quarter of 2017 and 2018

The chart below summarizes the highlights of the most recent survey responses.

Learn more about the survey here.

The upbeat third-quarter survey results coincide with the release of a number of upbeat economic indicators for the third quarter. Among other things, NAM reports manufacturing production has risen by 2.5 percent over the past 12 months, the best year-over-year rate since August 2014. In October:

Manufacturing production expanded robustly in October, up 1.3 percent, its fastest monthly pace of growth since April;
Durable goods production rose by 0.4 percent;
Nondurable goods production rose by 2.3 percent, rebounding from significant declines in activity in August and September in the chemicals and petroleum and coal products segments due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma;
Manufacturing capacity utilized soared from 75.5 percent in September to 76.4 percent in October, a reading not seen since May 2008; and
Housing starts and consumer spending continue to rise.

While NAM reports manufacturers are optimistic about their business performance and opportunities over the next 12-months, manufacturers also are increasingly concerned about hiring the workers needed to meet demand. The uptick in the economy following the long economic downturn continues to fuel a shortage in qualified, experienced workers as well as competition among employers for experienced and inexperienced workers. Manufacturing and other businesses need to re-evaluate and update their existing hiring, compensation, training and other workforce recruitment and retention practices to recruit additional workers as well as to retain key employees likely to receive overtures to consider changing employment from other employers within and outside the employer’s industry. Business leaders also should re-assess the adequacy of existing noncompete, trade secret and other policies and practices for safeguarding trade secrets and other sensitive systems and data to minimize risks of lost or compromised intellectual property if workers leave as well as maximize the strength of protections for data and systems shared with new recruits.

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 management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017 | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Economy, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Non-Compete, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

November 1, 2017

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced today the appointment of Jennifer A. Abruzzo to serve as NLRB’s Acting General Counsel.

Although Ms. Abruzzo original began her legal career as a civil litigation attorney in the medical malpractice division of a South Florida firm, she has spent almost twenty-three years working for the NLRB in various capacities, including as Field Attorney, Supervisory Field Attorney and Deputy Regional Attorney in the Miami, Florida office, as well as Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the Division of Operations-Management in Washington, DC, where she oversaw Regional operations in the Northeast and Midwest.

Prior to becoming Deputy General Counsel, Ms. Abruzzo served as the Executive Assistant to Acting General Counsel Lafe E. Solomon, and detailed in that role for General Counsel Ronald E. Meisburg. In 2011 her involvement at the NLRB drew public attention when an e-mail sent to her by then NLRB Deputy Assistant General Counsel Joseph Baniszewski forwarding a political cartoon mocking the state of South Carolina with regard to Boeing Corporation’s decision to locate its manufacturing facility to South Carolina was made public.

During her career with NLRB, she has participated in the litigation of numerous high profile cases.

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 management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

1 Comment | board of directors, compliance, directors, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, ERISA, health plan, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Loyalty, Management, Managment, NLRA, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

September 13, 2017

Employers beware of potential National Labor Relations Act unfair labor practices risks that may arise from their adoption or enforcement of overly broad or restrictive workplace recording, acceptable use, workplace conduct, commitment-to-integrity or other policies that might be construed to prohibit or deter employees from exercising protected organization or other collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in light of the Fifth Circuit’s July 25, 2017 T-Mobile United States, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. decision.

In T-Mobile v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit upheld and ordered the enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that telecommunications industry employers T-Mobile and MetroPCS (T-Mobile) engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA by maintaining a policy that prohibited all photography and audio or video recording in its workplace without the employer’s prior permission (“Recording Policy”).

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling arose from an appeal filed by T-Mobile with the Fifth Circuit, challenging a NLRB ruling that the Recording Policy, a workplace conduct policy, a commitment-to-integrity policy and an Acceptable Use Policy included in the T-Mobile employee handbook violated the NLRA because “employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity and therefore constituted unfair labor practices prohibited under Section 8 of the NLRA. (Note: T-Mobile did not appeal the NLRB’s findings that 7 other policies also violated the NLRA).

While the Fifth Circuit’s decision only upheld the unfair labor practice determination based on the Recording policy, the decision makes clear that its findings concerning each of the four employment policies subject to the appeal as well as other employment policies could come out differently in other cases based on the contextual evidence reflected in the factual record concerning the particular employment policy and the context in which it is implemented and enforced. Employers maintaining or administering similar workplace rules will want to scrutinize carefully their own policies to assess their potential for exposing the employer to unfair labor practice charges and take appropriate action to minimize these risks.

Policies Chilling Organizational Rights Protected By NLRA § 7 Create Unfair Labor Practice Exposures

Section 7 of the NLRA protects workers’ right “to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. NLRA § 8(a)(1) makes it an “unfair labor practice” for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights” protected by NLRA § 7.

According to existing Fifth Circuit precedent, a workplace rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if the rule either:

“Explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7″ or
Employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity even if the rule does not explicitly prohibit or has not been enforced to prohibit or restrict Section 7 protected activity.

A careful analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s decision makes clear that its decision about each of the four challenged policies covered by T-Mobile’s appeal turned upon the Court’s careful analysis of the surrounding context under which the applicable policy was implemented and administered reflected in the factual record. While the Fifth Circuit overruled as erroneous the NLRB’s findings that three other challenged policies violated the NLRA under this analysis, it agreed with and ordered enforced the NLRB’s ruling that T-Mobile’s Recording Policy violated the NLRA by impermissibly chilling worker’s exercise of their Section 7 rights. Construing the Acceptable Use Policy as prohibiting all recording in the workplace without the employer’s consent, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the policy would “discourage” a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity” because a reasonable employee would construe the Policy as prohibiting employee unionizing or other concerted activity protected by the NLRA.

Context Protected Workplace Conduct, Commitment-To-Integrity, No Arguing or Fighting & Acceptable Use Policy

Based upon its review of the contextual facts shown in the record, the Fifth Circuit overruled the NLRB’s unfair labor practice orders with respect to T-Mobile’s workplace conduct, commitment-to- integrity, no argument or fighting and Acceptable Use policies. Employers should note, however, that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling does not give blanket enforcement to the defensibility of these policies in all circumstances. Rather, noting that “context matters” when determining whether a work rule violates the NLRA, the court found the policies read in the context of the workplace established common sense civility guidelines that a reasonable employee would not read as chilling or discouraging organization activities protected under Section 7. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit declined to enforce the NLRB’s unfair labor practice orders against T-Mobile with respect to those policies in this instance. Employers considering the implications on this decision on their own policies should keep in mind, however, that the Fifth Circuit based its decision on the context reflected by the facts in the record. Accordingly, there remains a risk that these or other policies could be found to violate the NLRB if adopted or administered under circumstances that could chill reasonable workers from exercising their Section 7 organizational rights.

Context Invalidated Recording Policy

The critical significance of the factual context in determining the defensibility of each of these policies under Sections 7 and 8(a) of the NLRA is driven home by the Fifth Circuit’s explanation in the opinion of its decision to enforce the NLRB’s order with respect to the following Recording Policy as well as its explanation of its distinguishability from the Acceptable Use Policy that the Fifth Court found permitted.:

To prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information employees are prohibited from recording people or confidential information using cameras, camera phones/devices, or recording devices (audio or video) in the workplace. Apart from customer calls that are recorded for quality purposes, employees may not tape or otherwise make sound recordings of work-related or workplace discussions. Exceptions may be granted when participating in an authorized [T-Mobile] activity or with permission from an employee’s Manager, HR Business Partner, or the Legal Department. If an exception is granted, employees may not take a picture, audiotape, or videotape others in the workplace without the prior notification of all participants.

In determining this Recording Policy impermissibly deterred employees from exercising their Section 7 rights in violation of the NLRA, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion makes clear that “the broad reach of the recording ban” strongly influenced this determination, stating:

The ban, by its plain language, encompasses any and all photography or recording on corporate premises at any time without permission from a supervisor. This ban is, by its own terms alone, stated so broadly that a reasonable employee, generally aware of employee rights, would interpret it to discourage protected concerted activity, such as even an off-duty employee photographing a wage schedule posted on a corporate bulletin board. …

Unlike the “workplace conduct” policy and the “commitment-to-integrity” policy, the recording policy forbids certain forms of clearly protected activity. We have earlier held that held those two policies would not be interpreted by a reasonable T-Mobile employee as forbidding protected activity. By contrast, a reasonable T-Mobile employee, aware of his legal rights, would read the language of the recording policy as plainly forbidding a means of engaging in protected activity.

In the face of this possibility, the Court similarly considered the factual record before rejecting T-Mobile’s argument that the Policy was defensible to promote its legitimate business interests “[t]o prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information” on the grounds that “merely reciting such justifications does not alter the fact that the operative language of the rule on its face prohibits protected Section 7 activity, including Section 7 activity wholly unrelated to those stated interests.”

In reaching this determination, the Fifth Circuit distinguished these findings from its findings with regard to the Acceptable Use policy. In explaining its finding the Acceptable Use Policy valid, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion explains that the NLRB’s decision concerning the Acceptable Use Policy disregarded the context in which the acceptable use policy is to be read and understood, stating:

The “Scope” section of the acceptable use policy explicitly states that the policy “applies to all non-public T-Mobile information.” Thus the policy only prohibits employees from sharing non-public information.

Where a company policy prohibits the disclosure of non-public information, courts presume that a reasonable employee would not construe the policy to prohibit the disclosure of information that may be properly used in protected activity, such as wage and benefit information, so long as the policy does not explicitly state that it encompasses such information. … Here… the policy does not define “non-public T-Mobile information” in a way that would lead a reasonable worker to believe that it includes protected wage and benefit information. Instead, the policy only applies to the sort of proprietary business information that an employer may properly restrict its employees from sharing outside of the company. …

Thus the NLRB’s finding that a reasonable worker would construe the acceptable use policy to discourage protected activity is unreasonable, and we deny enforcement as to that part of its order.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit upheld enforcement of the NLRB’s order striking down the Recording Policy but denied enforcement and overruled the NLRB’s unfair labor practice finding with regard to the other three policies.

Contextual Basis of Decision Requires Employer Tread Carefully, Manage Risks

While the Fifth Circuit only enforced the NLRB’s unfair labor practice finding with respect to T-Mobile’s Recording Policy in T-Mobile, the opinion makes clear that similar or identical policies could be treated differently depending upon whether the contextual evidence reflects that the policy could be reasonably construed by employees as prohibiting or restricting conduct protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. Employers maintaining or administering similar workplace rules will want to scrutinize carefully their own policies to assess their potential for exposing the employer to unfair labor practice charges and take appropriate action to minimize these risks.

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 management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies | board of directors, compliance, directors, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, ERISA, health plan, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Loyalty, Management, Managment, NLRA, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

August 8, 2017

U.S. employers recruiting or employing workers with high demand skills or experience in the U.S. labor market should reevaluate existing employee retention and recruiting packages and policies and intellectual property safeguards to deal with the increasingly competitive job market reflected in June, 2017 employment data and trends reflected in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released today (August 8, 2017). Employers relying on workers within these industries should re-evaluate and update as necessary their existing budgeting, hiring, recruitment and retention, trade secret, noncompetition and other policies and practices to proactively position their companies to effectively compete to ensure they retain and recruit the necessary workers to operate effectively.

The BLS statistics offer employers and others key insights into various workforce and employment trend, not the least of which are signs of growing competition among employers for high demand workers arising from the continued growth in job openings reported in the BLS statistics. See, e.g. Table A. Job openings, hires, and total separations by industry, seasonally adjusted and Job Openings and Labor Turnover Technical Note; Table 1. Job openings levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted; Table 2. Hires levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted; Table 3. Total separations levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted.

BLS statistics showing new hires lagging behind the continued growth in job openings signal that employers in impacted industries and regions should prepare to face growing competition for qualified workers.

According to BLS, the U.S. job openings level increased by 461,000 to 6.2 million openings as of the last day of June. Among these 461,000 new openings, the overwhelming majority – 417,000 openings were for private sector positions, with the largest increases occurring in professional and business services (+179,000), health care and social assistance (+125,000) and construction (+62,000) while job openings decreased for other services by 62,000.

Meanwhile, BLS statistics showing that hires and total separations did not keep up with the growth in job openings sends a strong message that employers employing workers from increasingly competitive talent pools should focus as much on their ability to retain existing workers as to recruit new workers to fill new positions or replace workers. Aside from the gap between job openings and hires generally, quit rate statistics reported by BLS merit special consideration. As quits are voluntary separations initiated by the employee, the quit rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave an existing position for a new opportunity. BLS statistics showing continued stability in the quit rate and number of quits during June suggests that as of the end of June, reflected that many employed workers in high growth industries had not yet decided to make the leap to a new position. See Table 4. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted. Table 10. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, not seasonally adjusted.

Amid growing competition for workers, however, it is foreseeable that employers seeking to fill open positions will turn their attention to employers already employed. Accordingly, in addition to evaluating their ability to recruit qualified workers away from other employers, employers should anticipate and prepare for the likelihood that other employers increasingly will target their workers for recruitment.

Adequate analysis and preparation now could help position their businesses both to retain valuable workers and recruit new or replacement workers to fulfill their staffing leads. Beyond considering the adequacy of current recruitment, compensation, benefits, work rules and culture to compete effectively amid the evolving labor market, business leaders also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy and enforceability of trade secret, noncompetition and solicitation, and other legal and operational controls to protect their organization’s workforce and intellectual property from turnover related threats and dilution both as they relate to new hires and potential departing employees.

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 management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition | 401(k), directors, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Executive Compensation, health plan, Management, Managment, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update

November 10, 2014

Human resources and other management leaders are watching Washington to see if the change in Congressional control resulting from the November 4, 2014 mid-term election ushers in a more management friendly federal legal environment. Since President Obama took office, the Democrats aggressive pursuit of health care, minimum wage and other federal pro-labor legislation, regulations and enforcement has increased management responsibilities, costs and liabilities.

Nationally recognized management attorney, public policy advisor and advocate, author and lecturer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help human resources and other management leaders prepare for 2015 when she speaks on “2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update: What HR & Benefit Leaders Should Expect & Do Now” at the 2015 Dallas HR monthly luncheon series kickoff meeting on January 13, 2014.

About The Program

While November 4, 2014 Republican election victories gave Republicans a narrow majority in both the House and Senate when the new Congress takes office January 3, 2015, the new Republican Majority may face significant challenges delivering on their promises to move quickly to enact more business-friendly health care, guest worker, tax and other key reforms Republicans say will boost the employment and the economy.

While President Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders say they plan to work with the new majority, President Obama already is threatening to use vetoes, regulations and executive orders to block Republicans from obstructing or rolling back his pro-labor policy and enforcement agenda. When the new Congress takes office, the narrowness of the Republican Majority in the Senate means Republicans can’t block a Democratic filibuster or override a Presidential veto without recruiting some Democratic support.

As the Democrats and Republicans head into battle again, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney and public policy advocate Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help human resources and other management leaders get oriented for the year ahead by sharing her insights and predictions on the legislative, regulatory and enforcement agendas that HR, benefit and other business leaders need to plan for and watch in 2015. Among other things, Ms. Stamer will:

Discuss how management can benefit from monitoring and working to influence potential legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments when planning and administering HR and related workforce policies;
Discuss the key workforce and other legislative, regulatory and enforcement priorities and proposals Democrats and Republicans plan to pursue during 2015;
Share her insights and predictions about how the narrow Republican majority, Mr. Obama’s lame duck presidency and other factors could impact each Party’s ability to pursue its agenda
Share tips management leaders can use to help monitor developments and to help shape legislation, regulation and enforcement through Dallas HR, SHRM and other organizations as well as individually;
Learn tips for anticipating and maintaining flexibility to respond to legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments; and
More

To register or get more details about the program, DallasHR, or both, see http://www.dallashr.org.

About Ms. Stamer

Board certified labor and employment attorney, public policy leader, author, speaker Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized and valued for her more than 25 years of work advising and representing employers, insurers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and advisors, business and community leaders and governments about workforce, employee benefits, social security and pension, health and insurance, immigration and other performance and risk management, public policy and related regulatory and public policy, management and other operational concerns.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer continuously both has helped businesses and their management to monitor and respond to federal and state legislative, regulatory and enforcement concerns and to anticipate and shape federal, state and other laws, regulations, and enforcement in the United States and internationally.

Well known for her leadership on workforce, health and pension policy through her extensive work with clients as well as through her high profile involvements as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board member of the Alliance for Health Care Excellence, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Association (ABA), and the State Bar of Texas leadership and other involvements with the ABA including her annual service leading the annual agency meeting of Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) representatives with the HHS Office of Civil Rights and participation in other JCEB agency meetings, past involvements with legislative affairs for the Texas Association of Business and Dallas HR and others, and many speeches, publications, and other educational outreach efforts, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with Congress and federal and state regulators on the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, immigration, tax and other workforce-related legislative and regulatory reforms for more than 30 years. One of the primary drafters of the Bolivian Social Security reform law and a highly involved leader on U.S. workforce, benefits, immigration and health care policy reform, Ms. Stamer’s experience also includes working with U.S. and foreign government, trade association, private business and other organizations to help reform other countries’ and U.S. workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Ms. Stamer also contributes her policy, regulatory and other leadership to many professional and civic organizations including as Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, a Substantive Groups & Committee Member; a member of the leadership council of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; the current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, and the past Coordinator of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division.

The publisher and editor of Solutions Law Press, Inc. who serves on the Editorial Advisory Boards of Employee Benefit News, HR.com, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other publications, Ms. Stamer also is a prolific and highly respected author and speaker, National Public Radio, CBS, NBC, and other national and regional news organization, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs, HealthLeaders, Telemundo, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, CEO Magazine, CFO Magazine, CIO Magazine, the Houston Business Journal, and many other prominent news and publications. She also serves as a planning faculty member and regularly conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns for these and a diverse range of other organizations. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

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

Comments Off on Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update | 105(h), ACA, ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Bankruptcy, Cafeteria Plans, Child Labor, CHIP, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation transparency, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, Employment Tax, ERISA, ESOP, Excise Tax, Executive Compensation, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, OSHA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Premium Subsidies, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Rehabilitation Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retaliation, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Safety, Sexual Harassment, Tax, Tax Credit, Telecommuting, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Spectrum Healthcare NLRB Charge Settlement Highlights Need To Defend Against Possible Unfair Labor Practices & Other Union Exposures

May 20, 2011

The National Labor Regulations Board (NLRB)’s announcement of a settlement against a Connecticut nursing home operator this week in conjunction with a series of other enforcement actions highlight the need for businesses to tighten defenses and exercise other caution to minimize their organization’s exposure to potential NLRB charges or investigation. As reflected by many of these enforcement acts, the exposures arise both from active efforts by businesses to suppress union organizing or contracting activities, as well as the failure to identify and manage hidden labor law exposures in the design and administration of more ordinary human resources, compliance, business operations and other policies and practices.

On May 17, 2011, the NLRB announced here that Connecticut nursing home operator Spectrum Healthcare has agreed to settle a NLRB case involving multiple allegations of unlawful suspensions, discharges and unilateral changes in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and other federal labor laws by offering reinstatement and back pay to all discharged and striking workers and signing a new three-year collective bargaining agreement with its employees’ union, New England Health Care Employees Union District 1199, SEIU.

Along with the contract and reinstatement of all employees, the company agreed to pay $545,000 in back pay and pension benefits to employees who were harmed by the unfair labor practices, and to expunge any disciplinary records related to the case. As a result, all NLRB charges against the company have been withdrawn. Spectrum admits to no wrongdoing in the settlement.

The settlement, reached midway through a hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge in Connecticut and approved by the judge yesterday, ends a long-running dispute which grew into a strike by almost 400 employees at four nursing homes in Connecticut operated by Spectrum Healthcare, LLC. Complaints issued by the NLRB Regional Office in Hartford alleged that, beginning in the fall of 2009, several months after the prior collective bargaining agreement expired, Spectrum discharged seven employees and suspended three others to retaliate against their union activities and to discourage other employees from supporting the union. In addition, one employee was discharged and seven others were suspended after the employer unilaterally changed its tardiness discipline policy without first bargaining with the union.

The complaints further alleged that in April 2010, employees at the four nursing homes — in Derby, Ansonia, Winsted, and Hartford — went on strike to protest the unfair labor practices. When the strikers offered unconditionally to return to work in late August, the employer refused to take them back. Under federal labor law, if a strike is called because of an unfair labor practice, employees are entitled to reinstatement after an unconditional offer to return to work.

The reinstated employees are due to return to the facilities this week.

The Spectrum Healthcare settlement is reflective of the growing number of NLRB enforcement orders against employers generally and health care providers specifically under the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration has close ties and has expressed its strong and open support for union and union organizing activities. The adoption of a series of union friendly labor law reforms was one of the key campaign promises of President Obama during his election campaign. While other legislative priorities and the change in the leadership of the House of Representatives appears to have slowed efforts to push through this agenda, it has not slowed the Administration’s efforts to support unions with strong enforcement activities. Empowered by a difficult economic and job situation and an awareness of the Obama Administration’s strong support for union organizing and other activities, unions are stepping up organizing efforts and more aggressively challenging employers actions.

Over the past few months, public awareness of the Obama Administration’s aggressive enforcement agenda on behalf of unions has drawn new attention as a result of the widespread media coverage of NLRB actions challenging Boeings planned relocation of certain manufacturing jobs intervention in a planned relocation of certain manufacturing operations. See, e.g., Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon releases statement on Boeing complaint; National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. However, the Boeing and Spectrum Healthcare actions represent only the tip of the iceberg of the rising number of NLRB enforcement activities, most of which take place with little media or public attention.

Along side the Spectrum Healthcare and Boeing actions, in recent weeks, the NLRB also has been busy with several other enforcement activities. For instance:

On May 9 2011, the NLRB issued a complaint against Hispanics United of Buffalo (HUB), a nonprofit that provides social services to low-income clients, that alleges that HUB unlawfully discharged five employees after they took to Facebook to criticize working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. The case involves an employee who, in advance of a meeting with management about working conditions, posted to her Facebook ; and
On May 17, the NLRB secured a temporary injunction from a U.S. District Court in San Jose California against San Jose area waste hauling company OS Transport LLC, charged with engaging in unfair labor practices including the termination of a lead organizer and another Union supporter, retaliation against Union efforts in the form of unfavorable assignments, threats to Union supporters, and promises of improved treatment of employees who disavow the Union for the alleged purpose of defeating a union. o offer reinstatement to two drivers and restore full assignments to other drivers who had expressed support for a union during an organizing campaign. More Details here.,

In addition, in recent weeks, the NLRB also has:

Sued the state of Arizona on amendment limiting method for choosing union representation on May 5, 2011;
Secured an order requiring a Milwaukee job training center to pay back pay and reinstate workers fired for complaining about bounced paychecks on May 3, 2011;
Ordered a concrete supplier to rehire employees in Indianapolis on May 2, 2011;
Found a New York egg processing plant of unlawful interference and ordered a third election ohm April 27, 2011; and
Secured a settlement from Build.com of unlawful dischrage charges for firing employee based on Facebook comments on April 20

Amid this difficult enforcement environment, business leaders should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against both potential organizing efforts, to understand the types of actions and activities that may help fuel charges, and take steps to manage these and other union organization and other labor risks.

For Help With Labor & Employment, Employee Benefits Or Other Risk Management and Defense

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your labor and employment, employee benefits, compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend wage and hour and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Spectrum Healthcare NLRB Charge Settlement Highlights Need To Defend Against Possible Unfair Labor Practices & Other Union Exposures | 105(h), Absenteeism, ADA, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, ARRA, Bankruptcy, Cafeteria Plans, Child Labor, CHIP, Claims Administration, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, Malpractice, medical leave, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, OSHA, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Refunds, Rehabilitation Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retaliation, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Safety, Sexual Harassment, Stimulus Bill, Swine Flu, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Whistleblower | Tagged: ADAAA, Americans With Disabiltiies Act, Employer, employment discrimination, facebook, HR, Human Resources, NLRA, social medial, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response to ADA Amendments Act

March 24, 2011

Employers Urged To Tighten Disability Related Discrimination Risk Management

Employers should review and update their existing employment and employee benefit practices in response to updated regulations (Final Regulations) governing the disability discrimination rules of the Americans With Disabilities Act as amended by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will publish in the Friday, March 25, 2011 Federal Register.

On Thursday, March 24, 2011, the EEOC released an advance copy of the Final Regulations along with two Question-and-Answer documents about the Final Regulations to aid the public and employers – including small business – in understanding the law and new regulations. The Final Regulations, accompanying Question and Answer documents and a fact sheet are available on the EEOC website here .

The changes contained in the updated Final Regulations update the EEOC’s disability regulations in response to amendments made to the ADA by Congress as part of the ADAAA. Like the ADAAA they implement, the Final regulations are designed to simplify the determination of who has a “disability” and make it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Final Regulations and the ADAAA amendments they implement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. Since these changes make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in response to the Final Regulations. Learn more about the Final Regulations and get suggestions for risk management of expanding disabilities discrimination exposures here.

For Help With Disability Discrimination Risk Management or Other Needs

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your disability management or with other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend wage and hour and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response to ADA Amendments Act | Absenteeism, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Military Leave, Non-Compete, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Union | Tagged: ADA, ADAAA, Americans With Disabiltiies Act, Disability Discrimination, Employer, employment discrimination, HR, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Supreme Court Broadens Circumstances Where Texas Non-Competes May Be Enforced But Employers Must Still Exercise Care

April 23, 2009

Many Texas businesses view non-competition agreements as a critical component to their strategy to protect their trade secrets and other intellectual property. In its April 19, 2009 decision in Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding (“Frankfort Stein”), the Texas Supreme Court gave a another boost to the ability of Texas employers to enforce non-compete agreements signed by existing at-will employees during their employment under the Texas Covenants Not To Compete Act (the “Act”) Section 15.50, which governs the enforceability of employee agreements not to compete in Texas. Despite this helpful ruling, however, Texas employers still must exercise care to comply with all requirements of the Act if they want to position their non-compete agreements for enforceability in Texas.

Building on its prior October 20, 2006 employer-helpful decision in Alex Sheshunoff Management Services, L.P v. Johnson (“Sheshunoff”), the Texas Supreme Court in Frankfort Stein clarified that an employer’s implied covenant to provide confidential information to an at-will may constitute adequate consideration to support enforcement of a non-compete under the Act.. The holding expands the Supreme Court’s prior holding in Sheshunoff to apply to both express or implied employer covenants to provide confidential information.

In Sheshunoff, the Texas Supreme Court previously ruled that that an employer’s express promise to provide confidential information to an at-will employee in exchange for the employee’s express promise not to disclose or use such information, may create an enforceable non-compete covenant under the Act. However, the Supreme Court made clear that employers that desire enforce non-competition agreements still must fulfill the Act’s requirement to provide access to confidential information, training or other appropriate consideration for the employee’s promise not-to compete and the other requirements of the Act before Texas courts will enforce an at-will employee’s agreement not to compete in Texas.

The Frankfort Stein decision further clarifies the Court’s interpretation of the Act in Sheshunoff by holding that an implied promise to provide confidential information to an at-will employee also can constitute the required consideration for the employee’s promise to disclose serve as the provision of confidential information required to support enforcement of a non-compete under Texas law.

The Frankfort Stein decision may offer an additional opportunity for employers that have provided at-will employees access to confidential information to enforce a less than optimally drafted or implemented written non-competition agreement that otherwise complies with the Act under circumstances where the employer can establish it provided the information subject to an implied promise by the employee not to disclose the information. To avoid the cost and uncertainty of proving the existence and scope of such an implied promise, however, Texas employers desiring to best position their non-compete agreements for enforceability should consult with experienced employment counsel for assistance in reviewing their existing non-competition agreements and practices. These (and as appropriate, the employer’s employee handbook) should be written and administered:

ü To require employees to sign non-competition agreements that expressly and appropriately set forth the employers promise to provide the confidential information conditional upon the employee’s agreement not to compete and to protect the confidential information;

ü To ensure that the agreement appropriately defines confidential information and expressly requires that the employee protect and maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and other confidential information;

ü To ensure that the agreement incorporates other procedural provisions that can help minimize the cost and burden to the employer to enforce its provisions;

ü To ensure that the agreement between the employer and the employee otherwise clearly fulfills all otherwise applicable conditions of the Act and to maintain the confidentiality of the information the requirements of the Act; and

ü To position the employer to be able to easily prove that it actually engaged in the sharing of confidential information that the Sheshunoff decision identifies as a necessary step to enforce the non-competition agreement under Texas law.

Employers also should position themselves to best investigate possible breaches of these protections by securing written background check consents in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and ensuring that their handbooks and employment agreements include appropriate privacy, investigations and other policies.

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

Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Broadens Circumstances Where Texas Non-Competes May Be Enforced But Employers Must Still Exercise Care | Employers, Employment Agreement, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement | Tagged: Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, Human Resources, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

Konica Minolta Litigation Challenges Denial of Severance Following Office Relocation

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

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

Arrangements Subject To ERISA

ERISA Requires Written Plan Document and More

Written Plan Documents and Clear Eligibility Provisions

Fiduciary Responsibilities and Prudent Plan Administration

Benefit Claims and Appeals Procedures

Summary Plan Descriptions, Disclosures, and Reporting

Enforcement, Benefit Claims, and Fiduciary Liability

Employers and Business Leaders May Pay High Cost For Bungled Responsibilities

Practical Steps Employers Should Take Now

The Bottom Line

For Help or More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press™

Identity Theft Scan Targets Employee Tax Records

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs

Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017

Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

Stamer Kicks Off Dallas HR 2015 Monthly Lunch Series With 2015 Federal Legislative, Regulatory & Enforcement Update

EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response to ADA Amendments Act

Texas Supreme Court Broadens Circumstances Where Texas Non-Competes May Be Enforced But Employers Must Still Exercise Care

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update