Employment Discrimination |

What Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Must Know About Recent DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Orders and Hearings Considering Broader Marijuana Rescheduling

July 27, 2026

July 27, 2026

U.S. employers should reassess their existing policies on workplace drug use and testing and disability accommodation decision-making for Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”)-approved and state licensed medical use of marijuana in response to Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) rescheduling orders under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) implemented last April while closely monitoring for DEA action on a DEA proposal to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance under the CSA. The proposed marijuana rescheduling would significantly affect the consequences of marijuana use by individuals in the United States, including the testing and consequences of marijuana use under Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and other federal drug testing mandates.

Where the Rescheduling Stands Today

The recently completed ALJ hearing traces back to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published May 21, 2024, proposing to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA. After more than a year of procedural DEA delay holding hearings or taking other material action on the proposed rule, President Trump’s December 18, 2025 executive order directed the Attorney General to expedite completion of the rulemaking. In response, on April 23–24, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a final order that:

immediately moved FDA-approved marijuana drug products into Schedule III;
immediately moved marijuana subject to a qualifying state medical marijuana license into Schedule III; and
simultaneously ordered a new, expedited DEA administrative hearing to evaluate the broader question of whether marijuana generally — not limited to FDA-approved or state-licensed medical products — should move from Schedule I to Schedule III. See DOJ Office of Public Affairs release; DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Regulatory Actions page.

That broader hearing opened June 29, 2026 at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, before Chief ALJ Derek C. Julius, ran (with a recess for the July 4th holiday period) through mid-July, and formally concluded on July 15, 2026 following closing presentations from a group of participating states. See DEA press release; Notice of Hearing, 91 Fed. Reg. 22777 (Apr. 28, 2026). Because DEA and DOJ are the proponents of the rule, the hearing’s structure permitted testimony only from designated participants opposing rescheduling — including Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, and the States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, and Tennessee (through its Bureau of Investigation), among others. Pro-reform organizations including NORML sought and were denied participant status. ALJ Julius also ordered that the hearing would not be televised, livestreamed, or otherwise broadcast, limiting observation to in-person attendance.

With the evidentiary record now closed, ALJ Julius set August 17, 2026 as the deadline for designated parties to file optional post-hearing briefs (up to 50 pages each, one per party), after which he will prepare his findings and recommendation for the DEA Administrator. See Order for Transcript Corrections and Post-Hearing Briefs, In re Schedules of Controlled Substances: Proposed Rescheduling of Marijuana (DEA July 16, 2026). Particularly given President Trump’s expressed support for expanding access to medical marijuana, many might assume this rapidly approaching deadline signals a decision on the proposed rescheduling is near. It bears noting, however, that neither the ALJ’s recommendation nor the Administrator’s subsequent final decision is bound by any deadline. Following the DEA’s previous 1980s cannabis rescheduling proceeding, the ALJ took roughly two years to issue a recommendation that the Administrator then rejected outright, a rejection the D.C. Circuit ultimately upheld. See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

As if this ambiguity isn’t enough, the Acting Attorney General’s April 2026 final order reclassifying to Schedule III FDA-approved and state licensed marijuana now faces legal challenges such as the one brought by Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, see SAM Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., No. 26-1106 (D.C. Cir., petition filed May 4, 2026), and another brought by the Attorneys General of Indiana and Nebraska, see Nebraska, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., No. 26-1130 (D.C. Cir., petition filed May 22, 2026). While the fate of these consolidated challenges awaits resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, employers and health plans must deal with the currently effective policy change that, for now, has made a Schedule I drug FDAA-approved medical and state-licensed marijuana.

Pending the resolution of challenges to the currently effective change of FDA-approved medical and state licensed marijuana and DEA action on its broader rescheduling proposal, however, employers and plan sponsors should review their existing marijuana use and testing policies for the already effective FDA approval of FDA-approved marijuana drug products and marijuana subject to a qualifying state medical marijuana license that took effect under the final rescheduling orders issued by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on April 23–24, while continuing to monitor the Federal Register and other FDA and Congressional comments and actions signaling when and the likely direction the FDA intends to take on the broader proposal to reschedule marijuana generally from Schedule I to Schedule III.

What Already Changed — Independent of the Proposed DEA Rescheduling Rule Change

It is important for compliance purposes to separate what is already final from what remains pending:

Already in effect (April 2026 Final Order)

FDA-approved marijuana-containing drug products are in Schedule III.
Marijuana handled under a qualifying state medical marijuana license is in Schedule III, with a new expedited DEA registration pathway for state licensees.
State-licensed medical marijuana businesses are relieved of the Internal Revenue Code § 280E deduction disallowance, which applies only to Schedule I and II trafficking.
Recreational/adult-use marijuana, unlicensed marijuana, and synthetically derived THC remain in Schedule I and are unaffected by the April order.

Still pending (record closed; awaiting ALJ recommendation and DEA final decision)

Whether marijuana as a category — including adult-use/recreational marijuana not tied to an FDA-approved product or state medical license — moves to Schedule III.
The government has been explicit throughout that this proceeding is not about legalizing recreational use; it concerns whether marijuana has a “currently accepted medical use” sufficient to satisfy the CSA’s scheduling criteria.
Post-hearing briefs are due August 17, 2026; the ALJ’s recommendation and DEA’s final decision will follow on an unannounced timeline.

Why This Matters for Employers — and Why It Doesn’t Change as Much as Headlines Suggest

A move from Schedule I to Schedule III would be historically significant, but it would not legalize recreational marijuana use, and it would not, by itself, require employers to change drug-free workplace policies. Marijuana would remain a controlled substance requiring a valid prescription for lawful use under federal law; unauthorized possession or use would remain a federal offense. HR and employment counsel should calibrate client and internal expectations accordingly while continuing to monitor the following areas:

Drug testing and drug-free workplace policies

The scheduling change could impact your current workplace drug use and drug testing policies by expanding legally permitted use and requiring the collection of added documentation for those claiming permitted use. Employers, insurers and others concerned about impairment by workers consuming marijuana in accordance with its new scheduling will need to consider the need for and advisability of adopting policies tailored to their concerns and ensuring their testing and other administrative practices meet applicable legal requirements.

For purposes of this analysis, the changes adopted last April can make medicinal use in accordance with FDA-approved or state-licensed uses legal in the applicable workplace jurisdiction. However, the proposed schedule III classification would not convert a positive marijuana test into evidence of lawful drug use in the ordinary case, since off-label recreational use would remain unauthorized under federal law absent a valid prescription.

Employers should nonetheless review testing panels, medical review officer (MRO) protocols, and policy language for currency, and confirm policies still align with applicable state law, which increasingly diverges from federal scheduling on off-duty use protections.

DOT and other safety-sensitive/federally regulated testing

The recently adopted and additional proposed rescheduling of marijuana to a Schedule III classification are unlikely to change U.S. Department of Transportation drug testing requirements, as its 49 C.F.R. Part 40 rules operate independently of CSA scheduling. DOT has previously confirmed that rescheduling marijuana would not, by itself, change safety-sensitive testing requirements. Employers with DOT-covered or other federally regulated safety-sensitive positions should watch for any DOT or agency-specific guidance issued in response to a final rescheduling decision. Nevertheless, the rescheduling likely foreseeably could encourage even broader unauthorized use by employees or others reading the rescheduling as eliminating prohibitions, reflecting a further decline in enforcement, or both.

ADA and disability-related considerations

The recent DEA rescheduling of FDA-approved use of medicinal marijuana to a Schedule I drug classification will expand legally available options for medicinal marijuana use by employees in accordance with appropriately prescribed and used medicinal marijuana. Also, forty states now authorize medical marijuana under state law, many with employment protections for off-duty medical use that already operate independently of federal scheduling. Federal rescheduling will not harmonize this patchwork, and multistate employers should continue maintaining state-by-state policy matrices rather than assuming a federal fix is coming.

These changes can create new Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) implijcations by, among other things:

Requiring employers to consider requests for accommodation of medically prescribed marijuana by broadening the availability and medicinal use of FDA-approved and state-licensed medicinal marijuana. Rescheduling does not change the ADA’s treatment of current illegal drug use as outside the definition of a protected disability while such use continues.
Requiring employers to consider the convergence between ADA’s mental/psychological impairment prong and MHPAEA parity classification issues when designing substance use disorder treatment benefits — a distinct analysis from current-use accommodation questions, and one worth continuing to track alongside this rulemaking.

Health and welfare plan sponsors and fiduciaries

The reclassification of FDA-approved medicinal marijuana also can create new design questions for health and disability benefit plan sponsors and claims and appeals health challenges for health and disability plan fiduciaries. For instance,

Health, AD&D, disability, life and other benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries should recognize that the rescheduling adopted last April expands the legally allowed prescription and use of marijuana.
While Schedule III status does not itself create a coverage mandate, the approval could affect how FDA-approved uses are treated by removing exclusions or rules that previously denied coverage based on their more restricted DEA Schedule III status. While formulary and coverage decisions for any FDA-approved cannabinoid product remain a plan design and medical-necessity determination for the plan sponsor and its PBM or other fiduciaries, previously relied upon exclusions may no longer operate in the same way to restrict coverage.
Plan sponsors, their prescription benefit managers, insurers and other service providers should reevaluate current formularies and coverage provisions and exclusions for MHPAEA and other implications. They also should watch the FDA approval pipeline for cannabinoid drug products for potential formulary impact, should evaluate the need for changes in coverage or benefit exclusions and added fiduciary or other risks relating to benefit coverage and limitations potentially impacted by marijuana use. Health, disability, accident and dismemberment, and life insurance plan fiduciaries and insurers should use care to consider prudently the potential implications of rescheduling on any claims or appeals including special concerns and considerations likely to arise with respect to health benefits impacted byh MHPAEA. Fiduciaries should use care to coordinate any MHPAEA comparative analysis work touching substance use disorder benefits with counsel already tracking that parity exposure.

Cannabis-industry and cannabis-adjacent employers

State-licensed medical marijuana operators already qualify for § 280E relief under the April 2026 order; HR and finance functions at these employers should confirm payroll tax treatment reflects the change and monitor the expedited DEA registration pathway for state licensees.

Recommended Action Items

For HR and Employment Counsel

Review (but do not overhaul) drug-testing and drug-free workplace policies now; hold substantive revisions pending a final DEA decision, which — with post-hearing briefs not even due until August 17 — remains months away at minimum.
Confirm state-law policy variations are current, independent of the federal rescheduling timeline.
Flag DOT-covered positions for a separate compliance check once DOT issues any post-rulemaking guidance.

For Health, AD&D, Disability and & Other Welfare Plan Sponsors and Fiduciaries

Task PBM and plan counsel with monitoring FDA’s cannabinoid drug approval pipeline for formulary implications.
Coordinate substance use disorder benefit design review with pending MHPAEA comparative analysis obligations.

For General Counsel and Risk Management

Track the consolidated D.C. Circuit challenges to the April 2026 Final Order alongside the ALJ’s post-hearing process; a reversal on appeal could unwind the medical/state-licensed rescheduling already in effect.
Maintain rescheduling-tracking analysis as privileged work product where prepared to inform litigation or enforcement-risk posture.

For State-Licensed Medical Marijuana Employers

Confirm § 280E tax treatment has been updated and pursue the expedited DEA registration pathway using existing state licensure as supporting evidence.

Stay Tuned and Share Your Input

While the DEA’s proposed rescheduling is a self-initiated proposal, the ALJ’s post-hearing recommendation and what action, if any, the DEA ultimately will take on its proposal to reschedule marijuana more broadly remain uncertain. Although the DEA hearing on the proposed ruling is complete, communications to the DEA and Congress still offer opportunities to influence the direction and outcome of these decisions. Concerned employers and others should consider communicating any input or concerns to the DEA and Congress promptly to ensure their input receives consideration. Meanwhile, employers, health and disability plans and other interested parties should reevaluate their policies in response to the already adopted rescheduling as they monitor for future developments.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization with decades of experience advising and assisting health industry and other employers to design, audit, and defend their employment and other risk management and compliance practices, including 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. For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer, contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is 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 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.

Nationally recognized for her decades of leading-edge workforce, health and other employee benefits and insurance, compensation, regulatory affairs and compliance, and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, she is the publisher of Solutions Law Press, Inc.® practitioner-focused compliance publications for employers, plan sponsors, HR professionals, health care, insurance, technology and data industry leaders, and legal counsel and risk management advisors.

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, engaging her services or to speak, her work, credentials, experience and involvements, or other matters, see the About the Author page, her website at www.cynthiastamer.com, or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

Comments Off on What Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Must Know About Recent DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Orders and Hearings Considering Broader Marijuana Rescheduling | Accommodation, ADA, Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, Claims Administration, compliance, Construction, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DOT, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testing, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, Marijauna, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Section 1557, Union | Tagged: cannabis, Controlled Substances, Health, marijuana, news, thc | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

What EEOC Scrapping Of Long-Standing Affirmative Action Guidance Means for Employers

July 1, 2026

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on June 30, 2026 voted to rescind two long-standing agency policy documents that for nearly 40 years shaped how employers structured voluntary workplace affirmative action efforts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission withdrew its 1979 interpretive guidelines, Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended, codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1608, along with the related Compliance Manual Section 607 on Affirmative Action. See EEOC, “EEOC Votes to Rescind Affirmative Action Interpretive Guidelines and Related Compliance Manual” (June 30, 2026).

What the EEOC Did

The Commission determined that the 1979 Affirmative Action Guidelines conflict with the text of Title VII and with Supreme Court case law developed over the four decades since they were issued. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas stated that the rescission is consistent with the text of Title VII and with Supreme Court precedent, and that the Commission’s action reaffirms that Title VII’s protections apply equally to every American worker. EEOC Press Release.

The Commission also voted to rescind the related Compliance Manual Section 607, finding it obsolete in light of the guideline rescission and inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court and lower court authority. Id.

What the Old Guidelines Did

The now-withdrawn Part 1608 Guidelines described the circumstances under which the Commission would treat voluntary, race-, sex-, or national-origin-conscious affirmative action as permissible under Title VII — including where an employer’s self-analysis identified an actual or potential adverse impact, the continuing effects of prior discriminatory practices, or an artificially limited applicant or promotion pool. A compliant plan under the Guidelines required three elements: a reasonable self-analysis, a reasonable basis for concluding action was appropriate, and reasonable, narrowly tailored action tied to the problem identified. See 29 C.F.R. § 1608.3 and 29 C.F.R. § 1608.4.

Critically, the Guidelines also functioned as a safe harbor. Section 713(b)(1) of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-12(b)(1), allows a respondent to defend against a Title VII claim by showing it acted in good faith, in conformity with, and in reliance upon a written interpretation or opinion of the Commission. The Part 1608 Guidelines were themselves the Commission’s designated written interpretation for this purpose. See 29 C.F.R. § 1608.1 and 29 C.F.R. § 1608.9. With the Guidelines rescinded, that good-faith reliance defense is no longer available on a going-forward basis for affirmative action plans adopted or maintained after the rescission.

Court & Executive Orders Behind Policy Change

The rescission follows Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025), which directed federal agencies to terminate discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, guidance, and enforcement positions, and to enforce longstanding civil rights laws against illegal private-sector DEI preferences and mandates. Id.

The rescission does not amend the text of Title VII itself. Title VII continues to prohibit discrimination in hiring, discharge, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq..

Employer Takeaways

Employers should treat this rescission as a signal of heightened EEOC scrutiny of race-, sex-, and national-origin-conscious employment practices, not as a wholesale prohibition on diversity or equal opportunity efforts. Stakeholder-specific action items follow.

C-Suite, Boards & Talent Leadership

C-suite, board and talent leaders should:

• Expect continued federal scrutiny of DEI-labeled programs and align messaging, policy documents, and public disclosures with a merit-based, individualized-decision-making framework.

• Budget for a documented, privileged legal review cycle for affirmative action, DEI, and representation-focused programs rather than a one-time policy edit.

• Monitor for parallel developments, including EEOC action affecting EEO-1 reporting and recordkeeping obligations, which may further change the compliance landscape.

In-House Counsel

In-house counsel should:

• Reassess litigation and charge-response strategy for any pending or anticipated EEOC matter that previously anticipated reliance on the Part 1608 Guidelines or the Section 713(b)(1) defense.

• Confirm that any voluntary affirmative action plan retained going forward is independently defensible under Title VII’s text and controlling case law, rather than under agency guidance that no longer exists.

• Coordinate review of affected plans under attorney-client privilege and work product protections given the increased risk of EEOC inquiry, private litigation, and reverse-discrimination claims.

Human Resources & Compliance Teams

Human resources and compliance teams should:

• Inventory all existing affirmative action plans, DEI hiring/promotion goals, mentoring, internship, fellowship, or pipeline programs that reference race, sex, or national origin as a factor in opportunity or selection.

• Flag any program that was adopted or documented as relying on the now-rescinded Part 1608 Guidelines or the Section 713(b)(1) good-faith defense for immediate legal review.

• Distinguish programs that merely expand outreach or applicant pools without using a protected characteristic as a selection factor from those that reserve slots, apply preferences, or set numeric targets tied to protected traits.

Cautionary Reminder: Protect Privilege

Employers reviewing existing affirmative action, DEI, or representation-focused programs in response to this rescission are strongly encouraged to conduct that review under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections, and to route related communications and self-analyses through counsel accordingly.

For Help or More Information

About the Author

Nationally recognised for her decades of leading edge workforce, health and other employee benefits and insurance, compensation, regulatory affairs and compliance, and other human resources and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private highly regulated and performance dependent organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a a key focus of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations on workforce and performance management, employee benefits, compensation, regulatory and operational compliance, and other related concerns.

Her experience includes more than 35 years of leading edge work experience helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, government contractors and other performance dependent employers; health plans and insurers, and a broad range of other businesses design and administer workforce, compensation and benefits, compliance and risk management and other practices and policies, and operate and defend organizations and practices to prevent, investigate, manage and resolve performance and behavior; manage civil rights, discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance responsibilities and risks; vendors and suppliers; conducting and defending investigations, audits, investigations, and other actions; crisis preparedness and response; to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Department of Insurance, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, trucking, alcohol and firearm, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security Privatization reform, Ms. Stamer also has extensive international, federal and state legislative and regulatory affairs experience on federal, state and international workforce, employee benefits, healthcare, education, insurance, data privacy and security, antitrust, and other regulations and reforms.

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 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.

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.

Comments Off on What EEOC Scrapping Of Long-Standing Affirmative Action Guidance Means for Employers | Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Discrimination, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Race Discrimination, Religous Discrimination, Section 1557, Sex Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Supreme Court Leaves Ninth Circuit COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Ruling in Place: What Curtis v. Inslee Means for Employers

June 2, 2026

Employers that adopted or are evaluating mandatory vaccination, testing, or other health-and-safety conditions of employment should take note of the implications of the Supreme Court’s June 1, 2026 decision to deny certification of a Ninth Circuit ruling that narrows the federal claims workers can bring to challenge vaccination requirements.

On June 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Curtis v. Inslee (Order List, 608 U.S., June 1, 2026), leaving in place the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s published decision in Curtis v. Inslee, No. 24-1869 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025). In Curtis v. Inslee, the Ninth Circuit had rejected the federal claims of more than 80 former employees of a nonprofit health care system who were terminated for refusing COVID-19 vaccination required under Washington State Proclamation 21-14.

Because a denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and sets no nationwide precedent, the practical effect is limited but meaningful: within the Ninth Circuit, the appellate decision stands as controlling authority foreclosing the federal theories the workers advanced. The decision is a useful roadmap of the federal claims that do not lie against employers and government officials who impose vaccination requirements—and, by contrast, a reminder of the claims that may still remain available under other laws.

Background

On August 20, 2021, then-Governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14, which, absent an approved exemption, required covered Washington health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The nonprofit health care system PeaceHealth adopted a corresponding policy, and it terminated employees who refused to comply. Aila Curtis and more than 80 other former at-will employees sued PeaceHealth and the Governor for damages, asserting a wide range of statutory, treaty, regulatory, contractual, and constitutional theories. As the Ninth Circuit summarized, the plaintiffs contended the only vaccine available before the deadline was an “investigational” product authorized only for emergency use, and that they were not adequately informed of an option to refuse it. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed all claims, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See Curtis v. Inslee, No. 24-1869 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025).

No Federal Statutory or “Informed Consent” Right Enforceable Under Section 1983

The court first held that none of the plaintiffs’ statutory and non-constitutional sources created a “specific and definite” right enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Central to the workers’ case was the “right to refuse” theory premised on the emergency use authorization provision of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, which directs that recipients of an emergency-use product be informed of “the option to accept or refuse administration.” The Ninth Circuit explained that Congress confined enforcement of the Act to public actions brought in the name of the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), and that courts may not judicially create an implied private right of action. The statute therefore confers no privately enforceable right under Section 1983.

The court rejected the remaining non-constitutional sources on the same rationale—none supplied rights-creating language enforceable by these plaintiffs:

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6, which at most imposes an educational obligation on a federal agency rather than on the employer or the State;
10 U.S.C. § 980 (restricting use of Department of Defense funds for human-subject research), a spending-power provision “especially unlikely” to confer an enforceable right;
Article VII of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States ratified as non-self-executing and which Congress has not implemented;
45 C.F.R. Part 46 (the “Common Rule” on human-subjects research), the Belmont Report, the Federal Wide Assurance agreement, the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement, and the FDA Emergency Use Authorization letters—none of which create privately enforceable rights, and none of which make these employees third-party beneficiaries. As the court observed, the plaintiffs were “vaccine refusers” rather than the “vaccine recipients” who might benefit from such agreements.

Constitutional Claims Foreclosed by Longstanding Vaccination Precedent

Turning to the constitutional theories, the court held that neither the Spending Clause nor the Supremacy Clause supplied a freestanding Section 1983 right. It then rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claims:

Substantive due process. The asserted “right to refuse an investigational drug without penalty” was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), and the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), under which COVID-19 vaccine mandates are reviewed for a rational basis and upheld where decisionmakers could rationally conclude the mandate protects public health and safety.
Procedural due process. The plaintiffs’ at-will employment was not a constitutionally protected property interest, and the proclamation’s notice and individualized religious and medical exemption process supplied any process due.
Equal protection. Because the workers did not constitute a suspect class, the mandate needed only survive rational-basis review—which it readily did. The court invoked the Supreme Court’s recognition of the public-health rationale for health care worker vaccination requirements in Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. 87 (2022).

State-Law Claims Were Left for the State Courts

Employers should not read the decision as resolving every claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the state-law claims against the Governor, but it upheld the district court’s discretionary decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law contract and tort claims against PeaceHealth under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court expressly did not decide whether those state-law claims state a claim; it left the merits to the Washington state courts. The federal ruling thus disposes of the federal theories without insulating employers from potential state-law exposure.

What the Cert Denial Does—and Does Not—Mean for Employers

While the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Ninth Circuit decision in Curtis v. Islee decision for now leaves in place that Court’s ruling that employees don’t havec a federal statutory or informed consent right to challenge vaccination requirements under Section 1983, employers also should keep in mind that these rulings do not mean that vaccination or other health-and-safety mandates are immune from challenge. Rather, Curtis and the now-final disposition confirm that the most commonly asserted federal theories—an implied “right to refuse” under the EUA statute, the PREP Act, and substantive due process—generally do not provide workers a damages remedy against employers or officials for vaccination requirements, at least in the Ninth Circuit. Employers nonetheless should keep the following in mind:

Future Supreme Court Decision Could Reach a Different Conclusion. Employers should keep in mind that the Supreme Court’s current decision denying certification does not guarantee it will not take up another case in the future that could reject or qualify the precedent set by the Ninth Circuit. In addition to the continued need to manage these and other potential exposures arising from the establishment and enforcement of vaccination requirements on non-Section 1983 grounds, employers also should use care to avoid engaging in conduct that could create facts that employees might rely upon to charge their employer with retaliation for the employee’s good faith exercise of rights that the employee believed she or he possessed.
Other laws still apply. This decision addresses Section 1983, constitutional, and EUA-based theories. It does not displace obligations or exposure under Title VII religious-accommodation and the Americans With Disabilities Act disability-accommodation requirements, the Family and Medical Leave Act and state and local leave laws, state and local civil rights and other laws, or collective bargaining or other contractual requirements. Mandate-related litigation increasingly proceeds on accommodation and contract theories rather than the theories rejected here.
Document the exemption and accommodation process. The court emphasized that the proclamation provided notice and an “individualized” religious and medical exemption process. Employers that maintain clear notice, a documented individualized interactive process, and consistent administration are better positioned to defend both constitutional and accommodation challenges.
Mind jurisdictional differences. A denial of certiorari leaves circuit law in place without creating a uniform national rule. Multistate employers should confirm how the controlling circuit and applicable state law treat these theories before relying on any single decision.
Preserve the public-health record. Rational-basis review turns on what decisionmakers could rationally conclude. Employers adopting health-and-safety requirements should document the legitimate business and safety rationale supporting the requirement at the time it is adopted.

Considering these and other risks, employers using or responding to challenges to employee or service provider vaccination requirements should seek assistance of experience legal counsel in designing and administering those policies to minimize discrimination and retaliation liability risks.

For Help or More Information

About the Author

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

Comments Off on Supreme Court Leaves Ninth Circuit COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Ruling in Place: What Curtis v. Inslee Means for Employers | Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, HR, Human Resources, Management, OCR, OFCCP, OFCCP, OSHA, Rehabilitation Act, religious accommodation, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Retaliation, Retaliation, Safety, Section 1557, Swine Flu, vaccination mandate, Whistleblower, Workforce | Tagged: Vaccine vaccination employer ada civil rights 1983 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$17M IBM Settlement Adds DOJ False Claims Act Liability To Risks For Using DEI Practices

April 20, 2026

The $17 million False Claims Act settlement with technology giant IBM by announced April 10, 2026, using affirmative action or other disfavored diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) practices creates added risks for federal government contractors and grant recipients beyond those U.S. businesses as a whole already face under the Trump Administration “merit based” interpretation and enforcement of federal Civil Rights laws as prohibiting DEI or other discriminatory decision making.

In the face of the IBM and other agency investigations and enforcements under the new merit based civil rights policy, all US businesses, generally, and government contractor specifically should seek the advice of qualified legal counsel on their potential exposure and options for mitigation of their exposure under the Trump merit based Civil Rights law interpretation and enforcement policy.

Affirmative Action & Other DEI Practices Under Attack

Government and private DEI practices have faced increasing challenges under a series of Supreme Court rulings that interpret the 14th Amendment as prohibiting affirmative action and other government required or applied race based hiring and other preferences except where adopted and tailored to redress a proven specific past discrimination harm. See e.g., Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 579–80 (2009). While the Court rulings since as early as 2009 indicated racial or other DEI preferences were allowed only to redress a past history of discrimination, federal regulators and many courts applied these holdings in a manner that presumed or required little evidence of specific discrimination to uphold DEI practices. Consequently, federal regulations and enforcement encouraged if not required broad adoption of these practices for decades.

The Supreme Court cast the dye for change with its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause and, as applied to recipients of federal funds, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d). Rejecting the universities’ diversity rationales as insufficiently measurable and not narrowly tailored, the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions ruled that racial classifications are presumptively invalid and must meet strict scrutiny with clear endpoints and individualized consideration to overcome that presumption of invalidity. Its holding and reasoning as applied to the facts leave little room for legal defense of DEI practices in education, government contracting, employment and other practices historically using DEI strategies absent a specific remedial justification tied to proven discrimination. See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009).

President Trump reacted to the Students for Fair Admissions and other Supreme Court rulings banning DEI policies in a series of Executive Orders upon beginning his second Presidency. See, Exec. Order No. 14148, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. ___ (Jan. 20, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14149, Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and Ending Illegal Discrimination, 90 Fed. Reg. ___ (Jan. 20, 2025); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Memorandum M-25-13, Initial Guidance Regarding President Trump’s Executive Order on Ending DEI Programs (Jan. 21, 2025); U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., Guidance on Implementation of Executive Orders Eliminating DEI Programs in Federal Workforce (Jan. 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Memorandum on Civil Rights Enforcement and Prohibition of Race-Based Preferences (Jan. 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Directive on Removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Training and Programs (Feb. 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Dear Colleague Letter, Application of Federal Civil Rights Laws to Race-Conscious Policies Post-SFFA (Feb. 2025).

Upon taking office, President Trump in his January 21, 2025 Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (“EO 14173”) directed federal agencies to interpret and enforce the Civil Rights Act as requiring merit-based decisions without application of preferences for diversity, equity and inclusion,” (“DEI”), “affirmative action” or other favoritism to particular groups.

In Executive Order (“EO”) 14173, President Trump announced his interpretation of the equal protection and opportunity provision of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Civil Rights Act “), Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 1996 (“Section 1557”) and other federal civil rights laws as guaranteeing “merit-based” decision-making and prohibiting DEI, affirmative action and other non-merit-based race, sex, religious, national origin preferences. Consistent with this merit-based construction, President Trump ordered all federal agencies “to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements” and “to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

On April 23, 2025, President Trump followed up on EO 14173 by ordering all federal agencies to stop treating disparate impact as a viable theory of liability in discrimination matters in Executive Order on Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.

In response to these directives, federal agencies abandoned decades of regulations and enforcement practices that encouraged if not required DEI practices to enforce a merit based decision making interpretation of federal civil rights laws that prohibits affirmative action and other DEI practices.

In response to President Trump’s Executive Orders, for instance, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has abandoned regulations that for decades required federal contractors to demonstrate their affirmative action requirements effectiveness with a merit-only decision policy. See, Exec. Order No. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 21, 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Directive to OFCCP to Cease Enforcement of E.O. 11246 Affirmative Action Requirements (Jan. 24, 2025); Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Director Catherine Eschbach, Letter to Federal Contractors Regarding Compliance with Executive Order 14173 and Wind-Down of Affirmative Action Programs (June 27, 2025); Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Invitation to Voluntarily Report Compliance with Executive Order 14173 (2025).

Additionally, for employers generally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) revised its guidance to reflect that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2) prohibits race-based employment decisions except in narrow circumstances, reinforcing a shift toward race-neutral strategies. See, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work (updated 2023–2024) (explaining that Title VII prohibits employment decisions motivated by race, even when framed as DEI initiatives). Meanwhile, the EEOC and the DOJ also sought to educate employees suffering job detriment from their employers’ DEI practices about their potential claims by jointly publishing a one-page technical assistance document, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work.”These actions are heightening Civil Rights discrimination risks for all employers for current or past DEI practices.

The DOJ’s weaponization of the FCA adds another significant DEI-derived risk for healthcare, education and government contractors. As reflected by a series of high profile agency actions initiated against educational and health care organizations using DEI practices announced in conjunction with or following President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders, federal health care and educational organizations participating in federal programs and federal government contractors face much greater risks from use of DEI practices beyond the general exposure of employers under the revised EEOC interpretation and enforcement policies. While initially these DEI enforcement policies targeted education and health care organizations participating in programs funded or managed by the Department of Education , the Department of Health and Human Services, or both, the IBM settlement makes clear these enforcement policies and risks now apply to federal government contractors and grant recipients as a whole.

Federal Government Contractor & Grant Recipient DEI False Claims Act Exposure

The first settlement announced by DOJ under the Civil Rights Enforcement Initiative announced in May, 2025, the IBM settlement with DOJ confirms DOJ is pursuing government contractors for using DEI practices under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).

On May 19, 2025, DOJ announced it would prosecute government contractors and other federal funds recipients under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative for knowingly violating federal Civil Rights laws by using affirmative action, diversity, equity and inclusion, or other non-merit based (“DEI”) employment or other business preferences.

DOJ further clarified in subsequent guidance that DEI programs involving preferential treatment may violate statutes such as Title VI and Title VII, and that false certifications of compliance with those statutes may satisfy core FCA elements, including falsity and materiality. See, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Guidance to Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (July 2025).

DOJ takes the position that certain DEI programs expose federal contractors and grant recipients to liability under the FCA where those entities certify compliance with federal civil rights laws while maintaining practices the government views as involving unlawful race- or sex-based preferences.

In the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative announcement, DOJ stated that entities receiving federal funds that “knowingly violate[] federal civil rights laws” may be liable under the FCA because such violations can render certifications of compliance false and material to the government’s payment decisions. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Establishes Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (May 19, 2025).

Government contractors targeted by DOJ for False Claims Act prosecution under its Civil Rights Enforcement Initiative face serious consequences as Civil Rights Act compliance is a condition of participation in federal programs. Since compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to eligibility to bill or receive federal funds under federal programs, DOJ contends that billing the federal government or receiving funds under programs subject to these terms of participation for periods that the contractor are Grant recipient had DEI or other non-merit based practices constitutes making a false claim in violation of the False Claims Act.

Since announcing its FCA initiative, DOJ has encouraged whistleblower (qui tam) actions and signaled it was conducting active investigation and enforcement against federal funding recipients whose DEI policies allegedly conflict with federal nondiscrimination requirements of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. See also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Division Memoranda on Civil Rights Enforcement and FCA Application (2025).

IBM Settlement Confirms DOJ FCA DEI Enforcement

The IBM settlement secured under DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative confirms DOJ is pursuing government contractors for DEI practices.

On April 10, 2026 (publicly reported mid-April), DOJ announced that IBM agreed to pay approximately $17 million to resolve allegations that it violated the FCA by certifying compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements in its government contracts while allegedly maintaining DEI practices that the government contended were discriminatory on the basis of race or sex. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, IBM Pays $17 Million to Resolve Allegations of Discrimination Through Illegal DEI Practices (Apr. 10, 2026).

The DOJ IBM prosecution and resulting settlement reflect DOJ treats DEI programs as prohibited discrimination that can create FCA exposure where tied to contractual compliance obligations.

In its IBM prosecution, DOJ asserted that federal contractors must certify compliance with Title VII and related Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses as a condition of payment, and that knowingly maintaining noncompliant practices can render those certifications false and actionable under the FCA.

While IBM did not admit liability in the settlement, the DOJ sent a strong message to other government contractors to act to mediate their own exposure by repotting IBM received credit for cooperation, including early disclosures and remediation measures such as modifying or terminating the challenged programs.

As demonstrated by the announced IBM settlement, sanctions for False Claims Act violations are harsh. Along with potential criminal consequences for intentional or knowing violations, civil violations of the False Claims Act can result in treble damages and significant penalties, program exclusion or both.

Act Proactively To Mitigate Risks

The IBM settlement and other federal agency investigations and prosecutions sends a strong warning to Federal government contractors and federal grant recipients specifically and U.S. businesses generally to take proactive steps to mitigate their very real risk that their past and current DEI or other non-merit based employment and other policies.

With FCA enforcement now added to the employment discrimination enforcement risk government contractors face for challenged DEI practices, government contractors also must recognize their government contractor status puts them at a high risk of scrutiny due to the reporting and audit protocols used with government contracts and grants. When weighing the likelihood that their past or current practices will trigger scrutiny, government contractors are reminded that current and past certification and reporting facilitate the ability of DOJ and OFCCP to identify targets for enforcement under this new interpretation and enforcement of Civil Rights laws while sanctions secured through enforcement return significant revenue to federally constrained budgets.

Consequently, businesses generally and government contractors specifically should seek the assistance of qualified legal counsel to assess and mitigate their risk from past or current DEI initiatives in light of heightened litigation risk and federal agencies’s interpretation and enforcement of new Civil Rights merit based enforcement position. Organizations are encouraged to keep in mind that the sensitive nature of this investigation and analysis makes it critical that organizations conduct this analysis and their options for mitigation of liability within the scope of attorney. Client privileged to protect sensitive conversations and analysis from discovery.

If you have questions about or need assistance with these and other risk management or compliance concerns, contact the author.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

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

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Certification, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 35 years experience, advising plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others about fiduciary responsibility and other employee benefit plan design, administration, risk management and compliance. i

Ms. Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on health and other employee benefits, insurance, healthcare, workforce, HIPAA and other data and technology and other compliance in connection with her work with health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.

Ms. Stamer has more than 35 plus years of experience advising and representing, employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and administrators, their administrative services, technology and other business associates and other vendors, managed care and insurance, health care and other clients about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.

Ms. Stamer is nationally sought out for her decades of leading-edge experience in the design, sponsorship, administration, and defense of health, severance, savings retirement and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology, and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability, and advance other operational goals. This experience includes decades of work on ERISA, Internal Revenue Code and other related labor and employment, insurance, corporate and securities, data privacy and security, licensing and other laws. She also sought out for her extensive speaking and publications on these and related concerns.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations including current or previous service as Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member for the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section and Chair of its Welfare Plan, Fiduciary Responsibility and Plan Terminations Committees; Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee; Chair and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, Vice Chair of its Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees; and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management and Special Technologies Committees; ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) Council Representative and Scribe for its annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services; International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair; Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair; Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is valued and celebrated for her decades of policy advocacy and charitable, pro bono, community and other service and leadership to promote understanding and strengthening health care, workforce, saving, disability, aging and retirement and other key policies and challenges through her PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also often speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry, health and other benefits, workforce and other experience and involvements, see the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer P.C. website 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.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could change the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, 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.

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on $17M IBM Settlement Adds DOJ False Claims Act Liability To Risks For Using DEI Practices | Affirmative Action, board of directors, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, health Care, Health Care Fraud, health insurance marketplace, health plan, HR, Human Resources, LEP, LGBT, Medicare Advantage, OFCCP, OFCCP, Race Discrimination, Retaliation, Risk Management, school, Schools, Sex Discrimination, Supreme Court, Whistleblower | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Department of Justice, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment discrimination, false claims act, government contractor, Government Contractors, Health Care Provider, Human Resources, Labor Department, National Origin Discrimination, OFCCP, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Managing Evidentiary Consequences Of AI Use

April 8, 2026

Human resources and other business leaders, using or allowing workforce members to CHAT-GPT or other artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools to research, make decisions or to support other activities should ensure that their organizations and their teams understand and manage the resulting evidentiary consequences and responsibilities these activities create.

In today’s AI age, Human Resources directors and other business leaders in increasingly are encouraged to turn to AI tools for a quick understanding of the law, drafting of documents, and a host of other human relations and business functions traditionally performed with the assistance of legal counsel. Although AI tools can be valuable under the right situations and properly used, the use of AI tools, along side of or as a substitute for legal advice obtained within the scope of attorney client privilege can carry a number of inherent risks and challenges. Human Resources and other leaders and their organization should carefully evaluate and manage these consequences before using AI.

AI Searches May Be And Create Evidence

AI prompts, outputs, and related metadata often qualify as discoverable electronically stored information (“ESI”) in litigation, regulatory audits, and enforcement proceedings.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discoverable information includes electronically stored information (ESI”) relevant to claims or defenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); 34(a)(1)(A). Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, organizations must preserve relevant ESI under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See e.g.,Hoffer v. Tellone, 128 F.4th 433 (2d Cir. 2025).

AI searches and other interactions and the information and other outputs they produce generally qualify as ESI for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, (hereafter collectively the “Federal Rules”) and comparable federal and state litigation procedural rules.

Likewise, federal and state regulatory and enforcement agencies tend to consider AI and other ESI evidence covered by document retention and discovery rules.

Where applicable, these Federal Rules and agency rules generally include AI and other ESI evidence organizations must preserve, identify, and subject to discovery or other production like traditional evidence in litigation and agency audits and investigations.

ESI evidence generally includes any data stored in electronic form—such as emails, texts, spreadsheets, social media, and Internet of Things (“IoT”) data. As broadly construed by the courts, courts already long have admitted:

Internet search histories;
Internal chats and Slack messages;
Draft documents; and
Deleted files.

AI searches are simply the next evolution of this evidence category. AI records and information considered ESI can include;

AI prompt histories;
Generated outputs;
Embedded AI-assisted drafts;
Platform logs (if accessible); and
Other records.

Organizations that fail to fulfill requirements for AI or other ESI early identification, data authentication and other requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 902, the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) regarding lost evidence, or other applicable requirements to preserve and produce ESI may result in sanctions, adverse inferences, and penalties under the Federal Rules. Similarly, organizations may incur evidentiary sanctions, regulator penalties, and other adverse consequences for failing to identify, retain and produce ESI from AI or other sources in government audits and investigations. Common sanctions include:

Monetary sanctions;
Evidence preclusion;
Adverse inference jury instructions; and
Other authorized sanctions.

See, e.g., Jones v. Riot Hosp. Grp. LLC, 95 F.4th 730 (9th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal as sanction for intentional destruction of ESI); Maziar v. City of Atlanta, No. 1:21-cv-02172, 2024 WL 197561 (N.D. Ga. June 10, 2024) (denying summary judgment and awarding fees based on loss of text messages); McBride v. Moore, No. 2:23-cv-02904, 2024 WL 1136429 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2024) (denying sanctions where ESI not shown lost or duty not triggered). Gregory v. State of Montana, No. 22-____ (9th Cir. 2024) (reversing sanctions imposed outside Rule 37(e); emphasizing Rule 37(e) as exclusive remedy for ESI spoliation); DR Distribs., LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 3d 839 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (recognizing financial prejudice from spoliation and awarding fees); Bistrian v. Levi, 448 F. Supp. 3d 454 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (Rule 37(e) provides exclusive framework for ESI spoliation); Fast v. GoDaddy.com LLC, 340 F.R.D. 326 (D. Ariz. 2022) (failure to preserve mobile device data warranted sanctions).

These and other related cases alert organizations that AI and other modern data sources are squarely within ESI. Courts treat AI, texts, mobile data, and app-based communications as discoverable ESI.

The precedent reflects that the best opportunity to position your organization to show the reasonability of the actions taken is through the existence and enforcement of policies before and during the use of the AI tool.ESI preservation obligations depend on foreseeability, control, and access to data. When deciding the consequences of the unavailability or failure to produce ESI, the determination regarding failure to take “reasonable steps” is fact-intensive. Of course, the failure to retain the documentation will be particularly likely to be found unreasonable where the party was under a statutory, regulatory, ethical, contractual, or other pre-existing obligation to preserve the evidence.

Also, courts require proof of intent to deprive before imposing the most severe adverse inference or dismissal sanctions, a lack of proof of intent to deprive the request requesting party of evidence does not mean there will not be consequences for the non-producing party. Negligent failure to retain and produce ESI and other evidence still carries consequences. Even without bad faith, courts may impose curative measures, fees, or evidentiary limitations.

Similarly, the U.S. Department of Justice Securities and Exchange Commission Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal and state government agencies are increasingly sophisticated in digital evidence collection.

Among other things, organizations should be prepared to routine and produce documentation and data obtained, utilized, or otherwise interacting with AI tools and it’s associated meta-data and other components to respond to litigation and regulatory request for a broad range of data and information. Optimally the data captured and retained should include, but it’s not necessarily limited to:

AI usage policies;
Employee and other agent AI interaction records;
Evidence of AI and other relevant governance and training; and
Data protection controls.

Consequently, failure to govern, identify, preserve and produce AI-generated and AI-assisted records appropriately can expose organizations to spoliation sanctions, adverse inference instructions, regulatory penalties, loss of privilege protections, and expanded liability exposure.

In recognition of the possibility that AI tool interactions may give rise to obligations to retain and produce ESI evidence created as a consequence of that interaction, or organization should work with legal counsel to develop an administer appropriate practices to monitor, identify, retain, manage, and where necessary produce this ESI evidence.

AI Tools Create Evidence

Beyond considering and meeting documentation and other evidently protection, preservation, and production responsibilities, organizations and their human resources and other leaders need to recognize that the use of the tool itself and its outputs creates evidence that may give rise to legal opportunities, risks, and obligations for the organization.

Organizations should keep in mind that the use of AI tools creates legal evidently risks because AI tools typically generate synthesized responses (not just links) that often incorporate user inputs into outputs that may reflect user intent, knowledge, biases and opinions, and decision-making. This often makes AI interactions particularly valuable evidence for:

Intent (e.g., “how to terminate employee without legal risk”) Knowledge (awareness of compliance obligations) State of mind (deliberate vs. negligent conduct);
Knowledge (awareness of compliance obligations);
State of mind (intentional, willful, or deliberate vs. negligent conduct)

The potential risks of this and other evidence is heightened by the fact that the evidence created may arise not only from the actions taken by the user of the AI tool, but also may be inherently built into the design of the AI tool itself or the databases or other reference materials that it accesses, not all of which may be transparent to the user or the organization that employs the user. These risks are further heightened when the AI tool use is not conducted internally within the organization by its employee, but rather is a tool utilized by a consultant or other third-party provider conducting activities of a sensitive nature on behalf of the organization, such as a recruiting company, investigation, company, or other service provider.

These unique characteristics of AI make it advisable that organizations recognize and manage potentially heightened exposures that employee or other agent use AI tools can produce for the organization in a wide range of sensitive areas.

Examples of queries that can become “smoking gun” evidence include but are not limited to:

In employment or other workforce administration searches, AI queries such as “How to terminate employee with medical condition,” ‘How to avoid claims when, terminating older, disabled, complaining, injured or other employee with protected status, or the like can be evidence of discriminatory or other adverse intent;” or “How to beat a union organizing campaign;”
Compliance & Regulatory searches such as “How to structure payments to avoid reporting requirements,” “HIPAA penalties for disclosure; searches about compliance or looking for compliance loophole; searches where company researched sanctions for noncompliance in areas involved in litigation or enforcement; or searches on risk management that could be evidence the organization saw but chose not to follow rules or standards or otherwise looked for or acted to circumvent compliance or disregarded interpretations less favorable to chosen challenged course of action;
Litigation or Other Defense Strategy searches or tools such as “How to defeat a whistleblower claim,” “Ways to minimize damages in lawsuit” “Protecting your assets from IRS or in bankruptcy,” “How to conceal” or How to hide” orthe like can harm the organization’s interest by showing adverse intent, willfulness, or other motive or state of mind;
Litigation case law, enforcement, argument drafting, or other actions that could reveal or provide insight on sensitive litigation strategies or their strengths or weaknesses;
Financial & Tax searches such as “Aggressive tax strategies unlikely to be audited,” or “contract terms to reclassify employee to contractor,” “Structure transaction to avoid disclosure” or the like; and
Other searches or tool uses that could reflect improper, intent, or document improper activities, such as how to hide evidence, how to create a bomb, how to poison somebody or that creates a record of conduct such as edits to revise data or documentation in reports or records, where the changes are tracked and retained.

Given these other risks, organizations should carefully consider and manage these and other risks when deciding whether, when, how and what AI tools their organizations allow their people to use, who gets to use what tools, designate and train those authorized to use these tools appropriately, and design and implement appropriate tools to track, capture, retain and manage these records of AI use and their implications. Optimally, the planning should identify and work to manage the creation and preservation of evidence and related AI ESI required or otherwise helpful to meet, applicable, regulatory, contractual, statutory, or other requirements in a manner that minimizes the creation of evidence that could call into question the compliance or other appropriateness of the organizations actors.

Privilege and Confidentiality Risks

Asking AI tools to answer legal questions or provide guidance in legal advice obtained within the scope of attorney. Client privilege also can enhance the exposure for the organization and it’s actors because of the implications of that Youts on the availability of attorney-client privilege for the activities and information obtained. Using AI tools and output also can have implications on the ability of an organization to protect legal advice and work product developed and shared within the scope of attorney privileges from discovery in judicial or regulatory actions. Organizations need to recognize risk to the confidentiality of legal advice or work product that entering sensitive legal questions or information into public AI tools not specifically designed and used outside the scope of the attorney-client relationship to avoid creating problematic evidence, disclosing discussions or work product that otherwise might qualify for protect against discovery in litigation or agency proceedings under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product rules, or both.

Searches conducted by organization employees, consultants, or other agents or representatives about the law, strategies, or legal risks and consequences without or outside the scope of an attorney-client relationship generally can be discovered and used as evidence. Consequently, organizations should regulate the use by officers, directors, compliance officers, human resources directors, consultants, non-legal investigators and auditors and others of AI tools, internet or other searches to investigate the law or legal strategies independent of or outside the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Particularly risky scenarios include:

In-house counsel, Human Resources, risk management or compliance staff using public AI tools;
Employees seeking legal guidance outside approved channels;
Consultants, contractors, and other vendors use of AI in performing tasks or tools;
Embedded AI in software or other tools; or
Uploading contracts, PHI, or proprietary data into AI systems.

Additionally, organizations and others communicating or working with legal counsel on behalf of the organization within the scope of attorney-client privilege to design strategies or investigate or defend actions generally should not use AI tools to conduct their own legal research or analysis without authorization and direction of the legal counsel to avoid forfeiting attorney-client privilege and work product protections.

If the required confidentiality is preserved, the attorney-client privilege and work product privileges rules can protect confidential communications between a client and its attorney and work product prepared for risk management, defense or other purposes of the legal engagement against disclosure in litigation or other proceedings in many circumstances. However these protections are lost if the communication or work product is disclosed to or discussed with third parties outside the attorney-client relationship. Entering factual information, conducting legal searches, or using AI tools outside the attorney-client relationship, not specifically designed to preserve confidentiality, or both to draft or evaluate legal documents, research, drafts, or strategies generally is considered a third party disclosure that can waiver or undermine the privilege for the specific information input to the AI tool as well as potentially related communications or work product.

For these and other reasons, organizations and individuals generally should resist the temptation to use AI tools to evaluate legal strategies, advice or work product.

Trade Secret, HIPAA and Other Data Privacy and Use Exposures

Human Resources and other leaders also must keep in mind their organization’s responsibilities to respect other organizations, intellectual property, to safeguard the confidentiality and security of data, and their organization’s need to protect its own intellectual property.

AI tool enthusiasts promote AI tools as substitutes for legal advice and other paid services. While asking AI to write a “free” policy or contract may seem a great way to save legal or other consulting, licensing or other costs, human resources and other leaders and their organizations must keep in mind that not all data, information and resources obtained through a ChatGPT or other AI search is shareware. Most nongovernmental data bases, contractual firms, tools, templates and other materials accessed through AI searches are or incorporate materials owned or subject to copyrights or other intellectual property protections of third parties. Unlicensed use of these resources can expose their organizations to copyright and other intellectual property infringement liability.

Furthermore, human resources and other executives choosing to use materials drafted using AI tools or otherwise acquired off of the Internet or other sources without legal advice to recognize that acquired materials and resources may not be currently compliant, appropriately tailored to their use, or contain other deficiencies for utilization in their organizations. These deficiencies can arise from a number of sources. For one thing, the queries input by the user may not be sufficiently tailored to adequately represent all of the material considerations necessary to tailor he organizations, questions, and the AI response to the needs of the organization. Also, because AI databases often times include a broad range of historical data, AI responses may rely upon outdated, legal or operational presumptions incorporated into these historical policies when they no longer are appropriate for use in your organization. Additionally, the response of AI may draw from a wide range of sources, including many of which may be sample policies not drafted by qualified individuals with adequate expertise to fully understand the legal and operational implications of the policy and properly draft a policy appropriate for use in the organization, acquiring the form or materials off of the Internet.

Beyond suitability of the information where tool obtained through the AI search itself, unlicensed use of the response, may expose your organization to liability for violating other organizations or authors, intellectual property rights. AI searches can and often do access and incorporate data and other resources protected by third party copyright,trade secrets, HIPAA or other confidentiality, or other safeguards. Accordingly, accessing or using data bases, sample language or forms, or other materials without proper licensing or attribution may trigger liability to individuals and organizations for breaches of these intellectual property rights.

A separate concern arising from the use of AI tools in HR and other business operations to evaluate, formate or otherwise process sensitive data also creates potentially serious risks when theof these tools involves allowing the AI tool to access or uploading the confidential or other sensitive information into the tool. Human resources and other leaders must exercise care not to share inappropriately and to help their organizations use policies and processes to prevent their people’s use of AI tools to avoid violating statutory, regulatory or contractual confidentiality requirements, compromising confidential information, their own or business partner’s trade secrets, proprietary information and other intellectual property, or both.

Furthermore, uploading or sharing trade secrets, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (“HIPAA”) protected health information, confidential employee, tax or other regulated information, trade secrets or other confidential or sensitive data into AI tools or searches without proper controls may itself breach of HIPAA, trade secret, federal or state privacy laws (e.g., biometric, consumer data laws) or other statutory, regulatory, ethical or contractual data privacy or confidentiality obligations. Additionally, allowing AI tools to access and interact with electronic data or systems frequently triggers data and systems security obligations under HIPAA, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, Equal Employment Opportunity and other Human Resources and benefits data, electronic crimes, federal and state government contract, and a broad range of international, federal and state cybersecurity laws and regulations, and other government and private contractual and program participation, statutes, and regulations.

Given these concerns, organizations should avoid using AI tools that require uploading customer, financial, sales, or other data or information that the organization considers its own trade secrets or proprietary information into AI data bases or tools that do not adequately safeguard the ownership and confidentiality of that information.

AI Tool Hallucinations and Other Output Deficiency Risks

AI tools and the output they produce are not always reliable. Among other things, certain AI tools are known to:

Lack the ability to distinguish between more and less credible information sources;
Create plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated facts, news articles, legal authorities, or academic citations;
Create biased, false, incomplete, or inaccurate responses when models lack complete training data, are subjected to biased data, have limited context, ir under other circumstances;
Create false positives such as I dentifying a threat (e.g., in fraud detection) that is not actually present.
Fail to detect a real threat (e.g., in medical imagery) or report other false positives;
Fabricate non-existent, fake information or other incorrect or inaccurate information; and
Engage in hallucinations or other errors

The quality of the response, at best, often varies based on the quality and precision of the question asked. Lack of experience and careful structuring of the questions and inquiries made, lack of specialized knowledge necessary to structure the inquiry to be tailored to the specific needs at hand, and other limitations and concerns about the searches can undermine the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the AI tools output. Accordingly, response obtained by AI tools, often are unreliable and must be validated by a person experienced and skilled. The validation process should be conducted in such a matter that it preserves evidence that changes and responses are made based on thoughtful and reasonable determinations that the evidence obtained was not applicable or reliable, to minimize susceptibility to claims that decisions and actions were cherry picking based on improper intent rather than appropriate quality assurance processes. Organizations allowing the use of the tools and the individuals utilizing them need to understand and appropriately manage the very operational, legal in other risks of these deficiencies and error errors when utilizing AI tools.

Adopt And Enforce AI Policies To Manage AI Tool Use Responsibilities and Risks

Considering these and other responsibilities, human resources and other leaders and their organizations should use care to decide when, how, why, and by whom it allows AI tools to be used in or on behalf of its organization and provide appropriate steps to manage those uses in the resulting ESI to fill its legal obligations and manage its legal and operational risks. Because this process of itself could be evidence impacting, the organizations, legal exposures, organizations generally should work with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege to work define and enforce policies and practices, to promote the organization’s legal and operational interests and manage the resulting legal obligations.

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising and representing governmental and private entities, AI and other technology, workforce and other legal and operational compliance, risk management and other operational and enforcement matters. If you have questions or need advice or help evaluating or addressing these or other compliance, risk management, or other concerns, contact her.

For More Information

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

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with businesses domestically and internationally on employment, benefits, technology, data confidentiality, privacy, and security, and other Federal Sentencing Guidelines and other workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

Author of many highly regarded compliance, training and other resources on these and other operations, risk management, compliance and government affairs concerns, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership and advocacy on these matters.

In addition, Ms. Stamer currently or previously served as the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits OCR annual agency scribe and a Council Representative, International Section International Employment Law Committee Chair and International Life Sciences and Health Committee Chair, ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee Chair, ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a host of other professional and civic leadership roles. She is a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

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

About Solutions Law Press™

Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, 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 health care, leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, 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.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or 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 constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, 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.

©2026 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 Managing Evidentiary Consequences Of AI Use | Accommodation, ADA, adea, Age Discrimination, Antitrust, Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims, Claims Administration, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Cybersecurity, Data Breach, Data breach, Data Security, defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, Department of Defense, DFAR, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Discovery, Discrimination, Diversity, Drug Testing, EBSA, Education, EEOC, Electronic Medical Record, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, ERISA, Evidence, Executive Compensation, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, FICA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FLSA, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, group health plan, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, HIPAA, HIPAA, Hiring, Human Resources, I-9, Identity Theft, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, Licensing, Management, OFCCP, OFCCP, OSHA, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Public Accommodation, Public Policy, Rehabilitation Act, Reporting & Disclosure, Retaliation, Risk Management, Safety, tpa, Union, Union certification, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Get Advice Before Terminating Employees Who Report Violations

January 9, 2026

The $100,000 damages and reinstatement award Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) on Fort Worth-based trucking company Balkan Express LLC cautions other employees to seek legal advice before terminating or taking other adverse action against employees who have reported or taken part in investigations of safety or other laws. LOSHA ordered Balkan Express LLC to reinstate and compensate a worker who was terminated after reporting safety concerns, in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, which protects commercial motor vehicle safety complaints. OSHA ordered Balkan Express to reinstate the employee and pay back wages, interest, compensatory, and punitive damages totaling more than $100,000.

OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Programs enforce 25 whistleblower statutes that protect employees from retaliation for reporting potential violations involving safety, health, environmental protection, and other public interest concerns. These statutes include:

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), Section 11(c);
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA);
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21);
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA);
The Clean Air Act (CAA);
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA):
The Energy Reorganization Act (ERA)
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA);
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA);
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);
The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA);
The Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA);
The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (CAARA);
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX);
The Taxpayer First Act (TFA);
The Affordable Care Act (ACA);
The Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA);
The International Safe Container Act (ISCA)
National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA):
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA);
The Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA)
Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA); and
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21).

In addition to the anti-retaliation provisions enforced by OSHA, employers also face significant retaliation exposures under Equal Employment Opportunity, employee benefits, collective bargaining, and a broad range of other laws. These retaliation statutes and others arising under other statutes enforced by other agencies, through private litigation, or both can protect workers that make good faith reports of violations or cooperate in investigations even if the reported action doesn’t actually violate the law. An organization’s history of responding to reports of suspected violations also can affect the penalties the organization faces for statutory violations of these laws in court or agency prosecutions.

Retaliation exposures are significant and growing. For instance, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) statistics show the 42,301 charges alleging retaliation filed in Fiscal Year 2024 made retaliation the most prevalent filing for the seventeenth consecutive year in Fiscal Year 2024 and continued rising in 2025.

If you have questions about anti retaliation law exposures or other workforce concerns, contact the author.

More Information

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on health and other employee benefits, insurance, healthcare, workforce, HIPAA and other data and technology and other compliance in connection with her work with health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, Ms. Stamer has more than 35 years experience advising employers about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.

Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her decades of leading-edge experience on the design, sponsorship, administration and defense of health and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability and promote other operational goals.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section Welfare Plan Committee, Co-Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and its Annual Meeting Program Planning Committee, Chair Emeritus and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee. She also has served as Scribe for the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services and JCEB Council Representative, International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member, Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, as TIPS Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits Committee and Workers Compensation Committee Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is recognized for her contributions to strengthening health care policy and charitable and community service resolving health care challenges performed under PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

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

About Solutions Law Press™

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. ™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Get Advice Before Terminating Employees Who Report Violations | ADA, Affirmative Action, citizenship, Civil Rights, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Department of Defense, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testing, EBSA, EEOC, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, ERISA, fasle claims act, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, FLSA, Government Contractors, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Race Discrimination, Rehabilitation Act, Religous Discrimination, Retaliation, Safety, Sex Discrimination, sexual harassnrnt, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Trump Administration Enforcement Priorities Require Cautious Handling Of Religious Accommodation Requests

May 4, 2025

A $95,000 settlement of a Justice Department religious discrimination lawsuit alerts businesses to use care when handling religious accommodation requests in employment or other aspects of their operations in light of the Trump Administration’s announced enforcement priorities.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. The Justice Department warns enforcing the CRA’s religious protections is a Trump Administration priority in its May 2, 2025 announcement of a consent decree settlement of its CRA Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against the Advanced Science and Technology Education Charter Schools (“ASTEC”) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The lawsuit alleges ASTEC discriminated against Marcus Rethwill, a former teacher at the school, on the basis of religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by terminating him after denying his request for a religious exemption from ASTEC’s vaccine mandate for employees because he could not provide a clergy letter supporting his request.

Under the consent decree, ASTEC will pay Rethwill $95,000 in monetary damages, revise its anti-religious discrimination policy, and provide mandatory training on the policy to personnel.

The consent decree announcement follows President Trump’s declaration of the protection of religious rights a priority of his second administration. See, e.g., Executive Order 14205—Establishment of the White House Faith Office.

In his February 12, 2025 Executive Order 14202-Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias, President Trump declared:

It is the policy of the United States, and the purpose of this order, to protect the religious freedoms of Americans and end the anti-Christian weaponization of government. …

My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians. The law protects the freedom of Americans and groups of Americans to practice their faith in peace, and my Administration will enforce the law and protect these freedoms. My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified.

That Executive Order tasks all federal agencies to root out “anti-Christian bias” from the government.President Trump’s May 1, 2025, Executive Order On The Establishment Of The Religious Liberty Commission declares:

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.

The Justice Department warns other employers against violating their employees’ religious rights in its announcement of the consent decree. The announcement quotes Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division as warning:

When employees’ religious principles conflict with work rules, they should not be forced to choose between practicing their religion and keeping their jobs if a reasonable accommodation can be made. … Employer policies that rigidly restrict how employees can demonstrate the sincerity of their religious beliefs for religious accommodations are inconsistent with the breadth of Title VII’s protection against religious discrimination.

It also quotes U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester for the Western District of Oklahoma as stating

No employee should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to keep their job. …

Employers must take care not to craft or apply policies that require employees to forfeit their religious beliefs or impose unreasonable conditions that question the sincerity of those beliefs.

Other recent Justice Department investigation and enforcement actions clearly signal the Administration’s policy of enforcing religious rights extends beyond employment.

On April 29, 2025, for instance, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the private lawsuit, Grace New England v. Town of Weare, alleging that the town violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by threating fines against a small home-based church and its pastor.

The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and State Department reportedly have ordered employees to report employees displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of its effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government.

Widely-reported investigations and announced cancelations of federal grants or contracts, efforts to revoke tax-exempt status and other actions against Columbia University, Harvard University and others signal Jewish and other religions also may fall under these protections and that private sector organizations also are targeted for investigation and enforcement. It remains to be seen how the Administration will handle other religious discrimination claims. However organizations also must manage exposures to private federal and state claims.

In response to these investigation and enforcement priorities, all covered organizations should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel about evaluating and managing their own exposures to open past, current and potential future religious discrimination claims.

These efforts generally should include a comprehensive review and update of current policies and training, as well as an evaluation of exposure from open religious accommodation or other religious bias exposures within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

For More Information Or Help

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these discrimination or other workforce, employee benefits, health care, risk management or compliance, or other challenges or developments, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, via e-mail or telephone at (214) 452-8297.

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

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on religious and other discrimination in connection with her work with employers, health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology, education, government contractors, and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her decades of leading edge experience on the design, sponsorship, administration and defense of employment and other services, employee benefit,, data and technology and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability and promote other operational goals.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section Welfare Plan Committee, Co-Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and on its Annual Meeting Program Planning Committee, Chair Emeritus and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee. She also has served as Scribe for the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services and JCEB Council Representative, International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member, Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, as TIPS Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits Committee and Workers Compensation Committee Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is recognized for her contributions to strengthening health care policy and charitable and community service resolving health care challenges performed under PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also frequently speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.

About Solutions Law Press™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, 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.

©2025 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Trump Administration Enforcement Priorities Require Cautious Handling Of Religious Accommodation Requests | Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID, COVID-19, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, OFCCP, Real Estate, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Restructuring, Retaliation, Supreme Court, Training | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, employment law, Human Resources, Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Workforce Strategies For Avoiding Holiday Liability Hangovers

November 27, 2024

With this week’s Thanksgiving celebrations kicking off the 2024 year-end holiday festivities, wise businesses will proactively act to reduce the risk that their business will start 2025 with a post-holiday workforce liability hangover.

Responsibly managed, company-sponsored and other social celebrations and activities can promote team building, morale, goodwill and other rewards. However, holiday celebrations, staffing disruptions, behaviors and their fallout also can often create attendance, discipline, compliance, safety and other legal and operational responsibilities, risks and costs. Wise business leaders act proactively to mitigate these risks as the nation enters holiday season begins.

Health & Safety

Gatherings, food, game playing, toasting with alcohol, travel and other aspects of company-sponsored and off-duty celebrations can enhance usual or create new accident and illness risks. Holiday socialization, presentism, distractions, staffing disruptions, operational changes and other factors can increase illness and accident risks. Injuries and illnesses suffered on or off the job can create added occupational health and safety and worker’s compensation responsibilities, costs and liabilities, disrupt staffing and productivity, and fuel health care, medical leave, disability, worker’s compensation and other responsibilities and expenses long after the holiday season ends. To help workers enjoy the Holidays safely and avoid these business costs and disruptions, businesses should confirm that their occupational health, safety and injury policies, practices, and staffing fulfill applicable occupational health and safety and workplace accident and injury laws, as well as consider encouraging workers to follow good health and safety practices on and off the job throughout the holiday season.

Employers generally have a duty of care under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) and other occupational health and safety laws to provide a safe work environment. The OSH Act requires businesses to recognize and take appropriate steps to keep their workplaces safe. The OSH Act, worker’s compensation, leave and other laws. OSH Act and other workplace safety laws generally require employers to promptly report and investigate workplace accidents and injuries, ensure workers receive timely treatment, and trigger occupational injury and other leave and other duties.

Workplace injuries resulting from unsafe workplace conditions generally trigger expensive penalties and damages, in addition to worker’s compensation or other occupational injury coverage liabilities. The holiday season often exacerbates or adds to the ongoing challenges employers face in maintaining workplace safety and responding to workplace injuries and accidents. Some common sources of additional risks associated with the holiday season include decreased oversight from management holiday absences, heightened worker fatigue and distraction, demand-driven, vacation or illness-related understaffing, expanded use of temporary or contract staffing, and holiday season-associated intoxication. See Holiday Workplace Safety. OSHA offers various recommendations to aid employers in recognizing and managing heightened workplace safety risks during the holiday season. Keeping Workers Safe This Holiday Season. To mitigate their risks from workplace injuries and accidents caused by safety violations and associated violations of investigation, reporting, benefit and other requirements, business leaders should ensure that their organizations identify and manage these additional risks, as well as ensure appropriate staffing and other arrangements are in place to ensure timely response, investigation and reporting of any workplace accidents or injuries during the holiday season.

With outbreaks of the flu, respiratory illnesses and other communicable or infectious diseases that spread from person to person common during the holidays, and holiday gatherings heightening the potential for transmission of the flu or other contagious diseases, businesses also should consider their responsibilities under the OSH Act or other laws to manage contagious disease exposures and spread. For instance, health care and certain other industries may be subject to laws or regulations that impose specific requirements for preventing and responding to contagious diseases, many of which may have been added or changed since the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses should verify their policies meet or exceed current federal, state, local and contractual requirements as well as are designed to meet their business’ need to manage other contagious disease costs, absences and other disruptions.

Whether or not a business is subject to specific contagious disease management mandates, all businesses generally will benefit from reviewing and communicating their existing contagious disease and related leave and other workforce policies to workers and management to help protect their operations against the costs, operational disruptions and liabilities that often result from contagious disease outbreaks within their workplace. To enhance efforts to deter worker injuries and illnesses, businesses should consider using free resources like the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Habits to Prevent Flu and 8 Tips for a Safe and Healthy Holiday Season flyers, workplace posters, payroll stuffers and other communications to remind workers and their families to follow best safety and contagious disease prevention practices during the holidays.

Along with encouraging workers to stay healthy and safe during the Holidays, businesses should also consider providing documented reminders and take other steps to encourage workers to provide timely notice of illnesses and injuries and verify appropriate management coverage and arrangements to ensure that management team absences don’t disrupt the business’ timely delivery of Family and Medical Leave Act, occupational injury and other notifications, coverage for absences, provision of benefits, and other performance of other responsibilities in response to injury and illness reports despite holiday associated absences or hours of operation impacting the employing business or its responsible vendors.

Businesses also should verify their workplace safety, contagious disease and leave policies are designed and administered to prevent and mitigate exposure for unlawful OSH Act and worker’s compensation retaliation, disability discrimination against legally protected employees with chronic or other disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), denial of leave or other violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act leave, notice and other requirements; and ADA and other privacy and confidentiality laws.

Alcohol & Other Conscious Altering Substance Consumption

The increased prevalence of holiday season celebrations and vacations often fuels an increase in consumption of alcohol, marijuana, and other consciousness-altering substances. This consumption can fuel a host of risks and headaches for businesses. Businesses concerned about these risks should act proactively to mitigate these risks.

When addressing business-related alcohol consumption, many businesses will want to consider not only alcohol and other conscious altering consumption at business-related events as well as potential costs that may arise from off-duty excess alcohol consumption. Whether resulting from on or off-duty consumption, excess alcohol, marijuana or other conscious altering consumption, whether on or off duty, can undermine productivity, create attendance and discipline issues, and fuel a host of other risks even when it does not result in a specific accident or injury.

Impaired judgment from alcohol or other intoxication in the workplace or at other events often fuels or contributes to employees or others exhibiting or subjecting employees to inappropriate sexual advances or other discriminatory statements, violent behavior, suicidal behavior or other problematic conduct requiring workplace investigations and discipline.

Most businesses also recognize that accidents caused by alcohol or other intoxication at work or work-related functions create substantial liability exposures for the company under the OSH Act and other occupational safety laws, as well as to workers and any third parties injured by a drunken employee, business associate, client or guest.

Businesses risk “dram shop” or other claims or other liability if employees or guests impaired by alcohol or other substances consumed at company-sponsored or associated events or operating company vehicles or equipment injure others.

Beyond this third-party liability, businesses also may incur significant worker’s compensation, health or disability benefit-related benefit costs if an employee is injured or injures another worker in an alcohol-related accident.

The potential headaches are even greater where the business is a health care, education, automobile sales, trucking and other transportation, or another business subject to or that has voluntarily adopted specific drug and alcohol-free, drug and alcohol testing and other related regulatory or contractual requirements. Businesses subject to these requirements should ensure appropriate arrangements for timely drug and alcohol testing, reporting, and other compliance with these requirements during the holiday season to avoid regulatory or contractual penalties for noncompliance. Companies administering substance abuse testing must comply with applicable mandates while also ensuring that their processes incorporate appropriate protocols to comply with disability discrimination, accommodation and confidentiality requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See, e.g., ADA May Require Employers To Accommodate Employees Testing Positive For Legally Prescribed Medications

Also, because workers engaged in these industries generally risk loss of licensure, certification or other credentials required to perform their jobs for engaging in or failing to report certain alcohol or substance-related offenses or conduct, even off-duty consumption can create staffing headaches for an employer if a worker becomes temporarily or permanently disqualified to work as a result of a substance-related infraction. Consequently, businesses in industries affected by these heightened requirements have a heightened interest in educating and reminding workers to behave legally and responsibly when deciding if and when to consume alcohol or other conscious-altering substances.

Accordingly, virtually all businesses can benefit from encouraging employees to be responsible when consuming alcohol in both business and non-business functions and in planning and hosting holiday functions.

Businesses that serve alcohol at company functions or anticipate that employees will attend other business functions where alcohol will be served need to consider the potential liability risks that may result if the alcohol-impaired judgment of an employee or other guest causes him to injure himself or someone else. A company anticipates an employee or guest might consume alcohol at a company-sponsored or another business event and should adopt and enforce clear policies to prohibit and prevent individuals from over-imbibing and from driving under the influence. Many businesses also find it beneficial to suggest, require or offer at company expense alternate transportation for employees to use when leaving a company or business-related event where the employee consumed alcohol.

Businesses concerned with these liability exposures should take steps to manage the potential risks that commonly arise when employees, clients or other guests consume alcohol at company-sponsored events or while attending other business-associated festivities. To minimize these risks at company-sponsored events, many companies elect not to serve or limit alcohol consumed by workers and served to guests at company sponsored events and other business functions.

To help prevent intoxication from fueling inappropriate behavior at company celebrations where alcohol might be consumed or present, businesses, at a minimum, should remind employees that company policies prohibiting intoxication apply to company-sponsored social and business events. Some practical tips for hosting safe holiday gatherings include:

Management and other leaders should communicate expectations and set a good example.
Reduce opportunities for intoxication by prohibiting or restricting and monitoring the amount of alcohol available and served.
Offer a plentiful supply of a variety of nonalcoholic drinks—water, juices, sparkling sodas. Nonalcoholic drinks provide guests with alternatives to alcohol. They also may help counteract the dehydrating effects of alcohol, slow the rate of alcohol absorption into the body and may reduce the peak alcohol concentration in the blood.
Provide a variety of healthy foods and snacks. Food consumption can slow the absorption of alcohol and reduce the peak level of alcohol in the body by about one-third. Food can also minimize stomach irritation and gastrointestinal distress the following day.
Encourage guests to help keep each other safe by monitoring and assign a team to monitor attendees for potential overconsumption or other signs of intoxication. With appropriate pre-consumption notification to attendees, some businesses even require or encourage attendees consuming alcohol to take a breathalyzer test before departure to minimize the risk that an intoxicated guest will be arrested or involved in an accident after departing the party.
Help your guests get home safely by arranging reliable transportation by using designated drivers and taxis. Anyone getting behind the wheel of a car should not have ingested any alcohol.

Because holiday-associated alcohol consumption and other stresses also tend to fuel increased depression, domestic violence and other stress-associated behaviors, many businesses also find it beneficial to redistribute information about employee assistance programs (EAPs).

Businesses also may want to review the adequacy of existing health, disability, accident and dismemberment, group legal services and other benefit programs, liability insurance coverage and employment policies to protect and promote the company’s risk management and workforce coverage objectives. Businesses can experience unfortunate surprises if they don’t anticipate the implications of these provisions on their employment policies, leave and benefit, safety and other workplace programs and liability insurance and indemnification obligations and costs. Maintaining and reminding workers about policies regarding alcohol consumption or intoxication, accident and traffic offense notifications, privacy waivers, or other policies enhancing accident investigation and response, or other strategic policies can help deter and facilitate investigation and response to on and off-duty accidents or other risk-creating events.

Many employee assistance (“EAP”) health and disability programs incorporate special provisions affecting injuries arising from inappropriate alcohol use as well as offer coverage and benefits to aid employees and family members affected by mental health or substance abuse-related conditions. Changes in regulatory mandates and expanded enforcement of federal group health plan mental health and substance abuse coverage mandates make it important to ensure that employment-based health coverage complies with these requirements. Similarly, many businesses increasingly qualify for preferential rates or discounts on liability policies based upon representations that the business has in effect certain alcohol and drug use or other risk management policies and practices. Reviewing these policies now to become familiar with any of these requirements and conditions can also be invaluable in helping a business respond effectively if an employee or guest is injured in an alcohol-related accident.

Discrimination & Harassment Liability Risks

Businesses should also manage exposures to religious, sex and other discrimination risks linked with the holiday season.

Businesses should critically review their scheduling and other holiday season plans and practices for potential prohibited discrimination or other insensitivity. Businesses should use care to handle carefully requests for religious-based scheduling changes, particularly in light of changes in judicial precedent and regulations in recent years. Leave policies should disclose policies for scheduling and holiday leave clearly and include appropriate, updated policies and procedures for requesting religious accommodation. Companies also should consider seeking advice from legal counsel before denying a faith-based request for a schedule change in light of the latest guidance or recent court decisions precedent.

Business-sponsored or connected holiday or year-end parties, communications, gifts, and other December festivities and observances should be designed to reflect appropriate sensitivity to sexual harassment and religious and other cultural diversity risks. Businesses should exhibit sensitivity and alert their workforce to their expectation that members of their workplace exhibit respect and sensitivity to differences in religious practices and observances among their employees, business associates and friends. Management and other workers should use care to plan social gatherings to be inclusive and to accommodate differences in cultural, religious and other differences. Businesses also should be sensitive to the potential that workers of alternative faiths may feel discriminated against if holiday observances focus unduly on a particular religion to exclude their faith. Businesses also should use care to manage other discrimination exposures in the planning of holiday festivities, gift exchanges, and other activities. Businesses also should be vigilant in watching for signs of inappropriate patterns of discrimination in the selection of employees invited to participate in company-connected social events and off-duty holiday gatherings sponsored by managers and supervisors.

A good starting point is reminding employees, business partners and customers that the company expects employees, business partners and other guests to adhere to company rules against sexual harassment, religious and cultural and other inappropriate discrimination at company-sponsored and other gatherings involving other employees or business associates. Businesses also should remind employees that the company does not expect or require that employees submit to unwelcome sexual, religious, or other inappropriate harassment or discrimination when participating in parties or other social engagements with fellow employees, customers or other business partners and of the procedures to follow to report any concerning events. Even a simple e-mail reminder to employees that the company expects them to be familiar with and comply with these policies and can help promote compliance and provide helpful evidence if an employee or other celebrant steps over the line.

To enhance the effectiveness of these reminders, a business should consider adopting and sharing specific guidance to educate workers about its policies, including examples to illustrate company-sponsored and other off-duty holiday-associated activities of particular concern.

Businesses also should recognize that whether or not company-sponsored, the fraternization inherent in holiday parties and other celebrations where employees celebrate with other employees, clients, suppliers or other business associates can lower inhibitions and obscure the line between appropriate and inappropriate social and business behavior. With or without alcohol, some employees, clients or business associates may misinterpret the festive social atmosphere of holiday celebrations. Some employees, clients or business associates make unwelcome sexual advances, make sexually suggestive or other inappropriate statements, or engage in other actions that expose the business to sexual harassment or other employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation liability. To help deter inappropriate or risky conduct, businesses should consider providing reminders that company prohibitions and rules about sexual harassment, discrimination, fraternization and other inappropriate conduct remain in effect during the holiday season, including when planning or attending holiday celebrations or other events hosted by the business, business partners and clients, and even private management sponsored events and observances.

Gift Giving, Gratuities & Social Entertainment

The exchange of social invitations, gifts and gratuities during the holiday season or at other times throughout the year also can raise various concerns. Businesses should adopt and communicate clear policies and procedures governing both giving and receiving social invitations, gifts, and other benefits. Businesses should review applicable governmental regulations, contractual requirements, and customer and vendor policies for requirements that could impact the offering, receipt, reporting or other handling of gifts, social invitations or other activities. Businesses also should design policies to ensure that they collect and retain sufficient documentation from employees, officers, consultants, customers, and vendors to monitor compliance and other legal and operational risks associated with social entertainment, gifts, and other similar benefits, to report tax deductions and income arising from these activities appropriately, and to meet other compliance obligations. Businesses should review and update current business policies affecting social entertainment, gifting and other similar activities for opportunities to promote compliance and mitigate risks.

As with other holiday observances, all gifts, gratuities and social entertainment must adhere to applicable laws, regulations and company policies regarding bribery, conflict of interest or other inappropriate inducements or rewards. Companies should implement and enforce appropriate policies for the offering and provision of and recordkeeping and reporting of these perks.

Gifts, gratuities and entertainment practices also must not discriminate inappropriately based on sex, religion or other protected status and must reflect appropriate sensitivity to potential religious, sex, race, or other protected status. A business that anticipates workplace or work-connected private festivities might include white elephant or other gift exchanges may wish to specifically include a reminder to exercise care to avoid selecting a gift that may be sexually suggestive, insensitive to religious, cultural or other differences or otherwise offensive.

Businesses also should confirm that all applicable tax implications arising from the giving or receiving of gifts are appropriately characterized, documented and reported in accordance with applicable tax, referral, conflict of interest and other requirements.

In addition to ensuring proper tax documentation and reporting, businesses also need to ensure and retain documentation of the propriety of invitations, gifts and other benefits. Social entertainment and gift-giving activities intended to show appreciation or support marketing efforts can create significant legal or relationship risks if not properly tailored to avoid regulatory or contractual prohibitions or appearances of impropriety. Government contractors, government officials, health care providers, nonprofits, public companies and an amazingly broad range of other entities often must comply with specific statutory, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements affecting the giving or receiving of invitations, gifts or other preferences. An ill-conceived social invitation, gift, or other benefit that violates these restrictions may expose both givers and recipients to legal prosecution, program disqualification and other serious legal risks.

In addition to these externally imposed legal mandates, many businesses have established their own conflict of interest, social entertainment, gift giving or other policies to minimize the risk that employee loyalty or judgment will be comprised by gifts offered or received from business partners or other outsiders. Employees, officers and contractors of businesses maintaining these policies may face termination or other significant discipline for violating these requirements. Accordingly, businesses offering social invitations, gifts and other benefits to valued vendor or customer relationships risk must be sensitive to these organizationally imposed requirements.

Timekeeping, Performance, Attendance & Time Off

Businesses also commonly face a range of year-end timekeeping, attendance and time off, pay, compensation and productivity concerns. The winter cold and flu season and other post-celebration illnesses, vacations, and winter weather inevitably combine to fuel a rise in absenteeism and competing requests for time off during the holiday season. Improperly designed or out-of-date timekeeping and reporting, leave and attendance, investigations, privacy and other workplace policies can exacerbate management of these challenges and their costs. Further complications can arise when dealing with employees suspected of mischaracterizing the reason for their absence or otherwise gaming the company’s time off policies. Meanwhile, performance and productivity concerns also become more prevalent as workers allow holiday shopping, personal holiday preparations, and other personal distractions to distract their performance.

Managing staffing needs and tracking and administering timekeeping, overtime and other pay, paid and unpaid time off and other attendance, compensation and absence administration while maintaining compliance with legally protected or other legitimate requests for excused time off by employees can present major headaches for businesses and their management. Recent changes in federal, state and local paid and other protected leave mandates add additional traps for the unprepared. Businesses concerned with these challenges ideally will review their policies and practices to ensure their organizations have in place well-designed policies and practices concerning timekeeping, overtime and other pay, attendance and time off, productivity and performance that comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other compensation, timekeeping, leave, reporting, investigations, privacy and other federal, state and local laws. Businesses should exercise care when addressing productivity and attendance concerns to investigate and document their investigation before imposing discipline. Businesses also should ensure that their policies are appropriately and even-handedly administered. They also should exercise care to follow company policies, to maintain time records for non-exempt workers, to avoid inappropriately docking exempt worker pay, and to provide all required notifications and other legally mandated rights to employees taking medical, military or other legally protected leaves. In the event it becomes necessary to terminate an employee during December, careful documentation can help the business to defend this decision. The increasing prevalence of worker classification challenges by federal and state agencies and plaintiff’s attorneys also makes it important for businesses to take steps to require and preserve access to documentation be able to demonstrate compliance with these and other applicable legal obligations by staffing and other contract labor suppliers.

Timely Investigation, Notification & Reporting

Businesses faced with allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment or other misconduct or potential business liabilities arising during holiday seasons should also take steps to ensure that appropriate staffing and other arrangements to ensure their organization’s ability to promptly investigate, if necessary, take appropriate corrective action to address complaints or other concerns arising during the holiday season around management or other time off.

Delay in investigation or redress of accidents, discrimination or other concerns can increase the liability exposure of a business presented with a valid complaint and complicate the ability to defend charges that may arise against the business. Additionally, delay also increases the likelihood that a complaining party will seek the assistance of governmental officials, plaintiff’s lawyers or others outside the corporation in the redress of his concern.

If a report of an accident, act of discrimination or sexual harassment or other liability related event arises, businesses should take steps to ensure that management responsible for responding to these and other occurrences are property trained or otherwise supported to carry out these responsibilities in an appropriate, defensible manner as well as to provide timely notification as needed to any government entities, contract partners, insurers, agencies or other parties. Injuries occurring at company related functions often qualify as occupational injuries subject to worker’s compensation and occupational safety laws. Data breaches and various other events may trigger notification or other disclosure obligations to meet statutory, contractual or other requirements. Likewise, automobile, cyber, employment practices and other liability policies often require covered parties to notify the carrier promptly upon receipt of notice of an event or claim that may give rise to coverage, even though the carrier at that time may not be obligated to tender a defense or coverage at that time. Ensuring appropriate, timely response can play a critical role in promoting defensibility, mitigating liability or preserving coverage or indemnification rights.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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

An attorney Board-Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer’s work focuses on helping management manage performance, legal compliance and operational risks.

For more than 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has advised businesses and business leaders about enhancing the effectiveness and defensibility of their operations using employment and other workforce and services management, employee benefits, compensation, performance management, contracting, Federal Sentencing Guideline and other compliance and risk management, investigations, and other legal and operational tools and solutions. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others with compliance with federal and state equal employment, compensation, health and other employee benefits, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment, privacy and data security, and other laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and other federal and state regulators.

Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters.

Her work, thought leadership and scholarship on helping organizations manage people, operations and risk have earned her recognition as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

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

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

NOTICE: These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any particular situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves, subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone 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 are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation at any time, considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from using this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to 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. ©2024 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Workforce Strategies For Avoiding Holiday Liability Hangovers | ADA, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, EEOC, Emergency, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, family leave, FLSA, FMLA, FMLA, Fringe Benefits, health benefit, Health Benefits, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Leave, medical leave, Overtime, religious accommodation, Religous Discrimination, Risk Management, Safety, Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Worker, Workers' Compensation, workfirce, Workforce, workplace violence | Tagged: ADA, Discrimination, Drug Testing, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, holidays, Human Resources, Labor, OSHA, Safety, workers comp | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS Makes Defending Job Reassignments Harder

April 18, 2024

Employers should carefully scrutinize job reassignments for possible sex or other prohibited bias in light of the Supreme Court’s April 17th ruling holding job detriment suffered from a discriminatory reassignment need need not be significant to be actionable.

The Supreme Court’s Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision resulted from a Title VII lawsuit brought by Sergeant Latonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police officer against the St. Louis Police Department, challenging her reassignment as sexually discriminatory.

Muldrow alleged that she was transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department because of her gender. Despite maintaining her rank and pay, Muldrow’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were significantly altered. She filed a Title VII suit against the City of St. Louis, claiming that the transfer constituted sex discrimination with respect to her employment terms and conditions.

Muldrow appealed to the Supreme Court after both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit held that since the transfer did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits and only caused minor changes in working conditions, Muldrow’s lawsuit could not proceed. Those courts ruled Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage.”

The Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII only needed to show some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions, not that the harm was significant.

The ruling that proof of significant job detriment is not required for a reassigned employee to prove a job assignment discriminatory allows reassigned employee’s significantly more latitude to challenge reassignments as discriminatory. Consequently, employers considering reassignments of employees should carefully scrutinize the proposed changes holistically for any potential detriment that affected employees might use to demonstrate discriminatory job detriment. Additionally, employers also should carefully identify and document valid business, discipline or other defensible justifications for planned job reassignment before taking action to make the job reassignment. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of reviews and discussions regarding this analysis, employers generally will want to conduct this analysis with the guidance of a qualified attorney and within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

For More Information

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

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

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her experience includes extensive involvement advising clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination; EBSA, IRS, and PBGC employee benefit; WHD, CAS, Davis-Bacon and other federal and state wage and hour and other compensation; OSHA and other investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Comments Off on SCOTUS Makes Defending Job Reassignments Harder | ADA, Affirmative Action, Age Discrimination, Attorney-Client Privilege, citizenship, Civil Rights, compensation, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, HR, Human Resources, LBGT, national origin, Race Discrimination, RAISE Act, religious accommodation, Religous Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, sexual harassnrnt, Transgender | Tagged: civil rights, Discrimination, EEOC, job reassignment, reductions in force, Restructuring, title VII | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit

December 22, 2023

Pandemic’s End Doesn’t End COVID-19 Employer Headaches

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc. (“CHOA”) is paying $45,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit arising from its failure to grant a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination requirements for a maintenance worker. The lawsuit highlights the continuing importance of all employers to use care when handling request for religious accommodation to vaccine or other workplace requirements.

The lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) arises from the 2019 denial of a request for a religious exemption to CHOA’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate made by a maintenance worker. CHOA previously had granted the same employee a religious exemption for vaccine mandates in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee working primarily outside and his position requiring limited interaction with the public or staff the EEOC said.

The EEOC alleged the denial of the vaccine exemption violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits firing an employee because of their religion and requires that employers reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees.

Under the consent degree entered in Ciil Action No. 1:22-CV-04953-MLB-RDC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, CHOA will pay $45,000 in monetary damages to the former employee. CHOA will also adjust its influenza vaccine religious exemption policy to presume the exemption eligibility of employees with remote workstations or who otherwise work away from the presence of other employees or patients, and to protect the ability of such employees to seek alternative positions within CHOA if their religious exemption request is denied. The decree further provides that CHOA will train relevant employees on religious accommodation rights under Title VII.

The EEOC announcement of the consent degree alerts employers of the continuing need to use care when handling religious accommodation requests to vaccine or other workplace policies. “ It is the responsibility of an employer to accommodate its employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs,” the announcement quotes Marcus G. Keegan, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Unless doing so would require more than a minimal cost, an employer may not deny requested religious accommodations, let alone revoke those previously granted without issue. The EEOC is pleased that the employee has been compensated and that CHOA has agreed to take steps to ensure that it meets its obligation to evaluate religious accommodation requests in a manner consistent with federal law.”

Likewise, the announcement quotes Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, as saying , “The arbitrary denial of religious accommodations drives religious discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC remains committed to enforcing the laws that protect employees’ religious practices.”

CHOA’s denial of the exemption happened at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal COVID – 19 vaccination mandates now are all ended. While federal mandates initially dictated COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of participation in Medicare by healthcare providers, for government contractors and others, the original mandates were quickly revised to include religious exemption requirements before court rules, agency action and the end of the Pandemic put an end to these mandates. During and after the federal mandates, however, employers were required to negotiate a minefield of competing concerns and potential liabilities when deciding what and how to mandate and enforce safety, leave and other rules without running afoul of employment discrimination and whistleblower claims. See, e.g., EEOC COVID Guidance, Enforcement Highlights Need To Brace For COVID-Related ADA & Other Claims; Texas Private Employer COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates Prohibited Effective February 6, 2024; IRS Warns Of Fraudulent Promotion of COVID Employee Retention Credits; OSHA Enforces Whistleblower Rights Of Worker Terminated For Expressing COVID-19 Safety Concerns; Biden-⁠Harris Administration Ending COVID-⁠19 Vaccination Requirements For Federal Employees, Contractors, International Travelers, Head Start Educators & CMS-Certified Facilities; SCOTUS To Hear Oral Arguments on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Enforceability On January 7; COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Injunctions Leave Employers With Significant Liability Challenges Even As OSHA Extends Comment Period on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine ETS; Manage Heightened Retaliation Exposures Arising From COVID-19 Safety, Return-To-Work & Other Practices

While the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate is gone, many healthcare and other employers continue to impose mandate requirements with appropriate disability and religious exemptions as part of their workplace safety and patient safety protocols. Additionally, beyond the Covid – 19 vaccination protocols, many workplace vaccination and other rules also can create conflicts with certain religious beliefs that prompt religious accommodation requests.

Employers administering these vaccination, and other policies must keep in mind that the duty to offer religious accommodation and the EEOC emphasis on enforcing accommodation rights for workers whose deeply held religious beliefs conflict with workplace rules lives on. The perils remain, even if the requirement is supported by well, established patient or workplace safety protocols. Employers need to evaluate and be prepared to defend their inability to accommodate the safety and other concerns underlying the workplace mandate against a potential religious discrimination challenge.

Employers must remain diligent in their management of responses to request for accommodations keeping in mind that EEOC COVID-19 – era guidance imposes a heavy burden on an employer to justify its refusal of a request. For this reason, employers that receive a request for religious of accommodation from an employee should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel as soon as possible if any question exists about whether the employer will grant the request. Employers also should ensure their policies clearly communicate the availability of religious and disability accommodation from these other requirements, establish clear protocols for requesting and processing those requests and prohibit and prevent retaliation.

To promote defensibility, employers also should consult with experienced legal counsel about the use of attorney, client, privilege, and other protocols to prevent or minimize the risk that discussions and actions in response to, or following a request for accommodation creates evidence of discrimination or retaliation.

For More Information

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

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. At her career, she has worked extensively with healthcare and other employers to manage discrimination and other workplace and employee benefit compliance and risks. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit | Academic Medicine, Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID-19, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, health Care, health centers, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, religious accommodation, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Risk Management, Worker, Workforce | Tagged: COVID, Health Care, religious accommodation, vaccine mandates | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Accommodating Client Racial Preferences No Excuse For Discriminatory Assignment Of Workers

July 31, 2023

A new federal lawsuit reminds employers customer preferences or demands cont justify discrimination based on race or other grounds prohibited by federal law.

Brooklyn-based home health company ACARE HHC Inc., doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency (“Four Seasons”) faces a race discrimination suit for allegedly removing home health aides from their work assignments due to their race and national origin to accommodate client preferences.

According to a lawsuit filed (EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760), filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York on July 31, 2023, Four Seasons routinely acceded to racial preferences of patients in making home health aide assignments. The EEOC claims Four Seasons routinely removed Black and Hispanic home health aides based on clients’ race and national origin-based requests. Four Seasons would transfer aides to a new assignment or, if no other assignment was available, the aides lost their employment completely. The EEOC charges this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and national origin. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future discrimination based on employees’ race and national origin.

The lawsuit, warns employers against resigning or assigning workers to accommodate racial or other prohibited discriminatory preferences of customers, or business partners. “Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

The lawsuit is one of a plethora of enforcement actions by EEOC under the Bill den Administration’s prioritization of expansion and enforcement of discrimination and other workers’ rights laws.

In light of these efforts, employers should take immediate steps to update policies, postings, training and practices to ensure their ability to defend their compliance with race and other federal non discrimination laws.

For More Information

About the Author

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

Comments Off on Accommodating Client Racial Preferences No Excuse For Discriminatory Assignment Of Workers | citizenship, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, CROWN Act, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, national origin, OFCCP, Race Discrimination, Religous Discrimination, Sex Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer’s Refusal To Allow Employee To Undergo Dialysis At Work Triggers EEOC ADA Discrimination & Retaliation Lawsuit

July 31, 2023

Columbia, Mississippi-based Singley Construction Company, Inc., faces an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit that charges the employer violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to accommodate an employee’s disability by allowed ng her to undergo dialysis in its workplace and then retaliating against her for requesting the accommodation and filing a charge with the EEOC.

The ADA requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ disabilities unless the employer proves the accommodation is unreasonable, would impose an undue hardship, is prohibited by law or creates material safety threats to the employee or others. Additionally, the ADA prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation against employees for requesting accommodations, filing charges with the EEOC or Wang aging in other actions protected by the ADA.

In its suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00106-KS-MTP) on July 31, 2023, the EEOC charges that Singley refused to accommodate its office manager’s end-stage renal disease by refusing the employee’s request to perform continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) on Singley’s premises so that she could maintain her full-time work schedule. According to the EEOC, this denial forced the office manager to lose around 50% of her work hours and pay as she had to regularly leave work to undergo her dialysis treatments. The EEOC further alleged that Singley constructively discharged the employee because of her disability and in retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation and for filing an EEOC charge.

The EEOC seeks monetary damages for the employee including back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.

The EEOC contends the employer had a duty to allow her to undergo dialysis at work. “Employees on dialysis have rights under the ADA so that they can maintain their employment,” said Marsha Rucker, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District. “Employers would be well advised to recognize the right of workers to request reasonable accommodation for disabilities and to receive reasonable accommodation for disabilities absent undue hardship and direct threat. When businesses ignore these rights, the EEOC will hold them accountable.”

The lawsuit highlights the need for employers to use care when dealing with employees requesting accommodation in their workplaces.

For More Information

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

About the Author

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on Employer’s Refusal To Allow Employee To Undergo Dialysis At Work Triggers EEOC ADA Discrimination & Retaliation Lawsuit | Accommodation, ADA, Civil Rights, compensation, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination, OFCCP | Tagged: ADA, compliance, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

July 17, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

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

April 25, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC Warns Other Businesses

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

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

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

More Information

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

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with gender and other discrimination and others workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

National Origin Discrimination Judgment Against Dallas Property Manager Warns Other Busin

April 6, 2023

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

Alden Short Judgement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination Exposures Heightened

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile in the federal sector, the EEOC:

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

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

Manage Exposures

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

More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

EEOC Race Suit Showcases Rising Business Discrimination & Retaliation Exposures

March 29, 2023

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

PRC Race Suit

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

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

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

EEOC Enforcement Warn Other Businesses

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile in the federal sector, the EEOC:

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Federal Marijuanna Pardons Create Potential Employer Headaches

March 5, 2023

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

Biden Marijuanna Pardons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Employer Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Affordable Housing Company Nailed For Sexual Harassment

March 3, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Disability Program Sued For Disability Discrimination

March 3, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

February 15, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

EEOC Resource Explains Workplace ADA Requirements For Hearing Impaired

January 24, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

Comments Off on EEOC Resource Explains Workplace ADA Requirements For Hearing Impaired | Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

December 19, 2022

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

LEP Initiative

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

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

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

Denver LEP Resolution Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

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

December 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

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

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

Other Helpful Resources & Information

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

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

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

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

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

December 15, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

Other Helpful Resources & Information

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

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

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

OFCCP Revises Functional Affirmative Action Program Directive

September 22, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30+ year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

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

September 22, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

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

September 21, 2022

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

National Origin & Citizenship Discrimination Prohibited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

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

September 15, 2022

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

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

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

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

Background On FOIA Disclosure & Objections

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

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

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

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

New Timeline

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

Travis Nicholson Named New EEOC Dallas District Director

September 2, 2022

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

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

May 20, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

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

May 2, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

About the Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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

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

DOL Invites Employer Input On Youth Employee Mental Health Needs

February 17, 2022

Employers should put managing legal and operational demands for mental health accommodation for youth and other workers and their risk management agenda this year.

The Surgeon General’s recent release of an advisory report, “Protecting Young People’s Mental Health,” is one of a series of studies and guidance that the federal government has released in recent months on the impacts of the pandemic on mental health issues. The recently released Surgeon General report discusses impacts of the pandemic on mental health needs of young people. In connection with these findings, the United States Department of Labor is inviting employers and other interested persons to respond to a brief questionnaire from the National Youth Employment Coalition to help understand how workforce providers are grappling with this crisis. The DOL says this input will provide insight into the youth employment field’s current capacity to screen, connect, and serve youth with mental health needs. however, employers contemplating responding should note that the survey template requests that they respond it be identified by providing their name and other information. It is not clear whether the provision of this information may be used to target the employer for subsequent scrutiny.

The deadline for responding to the survey is March 11, 2022. To learn more, see here.

More Information

Want to know more? The author of this update, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, conducted a briefing on these and other federal COVID-19 vaccination and other workforce requirements as a panelist on the “COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates & Incentives” virtual seminar the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits hosted on November 12, 2021. To purchase a recording of the program, see here. For information about obtaining Ms. Stamer’s slides, email here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. also invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

For help developing, administering or defending your organization’s workforce, employee benefits, compensation or compliance practices, contact 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.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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.

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

Comments Off on DOL Invites Employer Input On Youth Employee Mental Health Needs | ADA, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, group health plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity | Tagged: Discrimination, Mental Health, youth employment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Latest Texas Supreme Court Emergency Order Extends & Modifies COVID Pandemic Rules For Texas Courts

January 20, 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak continues to disrupt ordinary litigation and administrative procedures including cases pending in Texas state, municipal and justice courts. On January 19, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court renewed and amended the COVID pandemic relief announced in its 45th Emergency Order. Its 47th Emergency Order:

Allows all Texas courts to use video and teleconferencing methods in civil and criminal cases through April 1, 2022;
Allows justice and municipal courts to suspend or modify trial-related and pretrial hearing deadlines through March 1, 2022;
Continues courts’ authority to modify certain procedures and deadlines in child-protection cases; and
Allows courts to continue to use reasonable efforts to hold proceedings remotely with certain exceptions or actions required.

Meanwhile, the order encourages justice and municipal courts to “move swiftly to return to regular pretrial and trial proceedings as soon as reasonably feasible before March 1, 2022.

The modified schedules, procedures, and dynamics resulting from this and other courts’ and administrative agencies can significantly disrupt the speed, progress and dynamics of investigations and litigation. Businesses and others involved in these enforcement activities should carefully explore the implications of these changes on the timing, prosecution or defense, cost and other aspects of their proceedings.

More Information

The author of this update, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, conducted a briefing on these and other federal COVID-19 vaccination and other workforce requirements as a panelist on the “COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates & Incentives” virtual seminar the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits hosted on November 12, 2021. To purchase a recording of the program, see here. For information about obtaining Ms. Stamer’s slides, email here.

About the Author

For help developing, administering or defending your organization’s COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccine Policy or other workforce, employee benefits, compensation or compliance practices, contact 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 working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com, on Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Latest Texas Supreme Court Emergency Order Extends & Modifies COVID Pandemic Rules For Texas Courts | ACA, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Emergency, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS To Hear Oral Arguments on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Enforceability On January 7

December 22, 2021

The Supreme Court will hold a special session on January 7, 2022 to hear oral arguments whether the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) can enforce the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Standard rules that require employers with 100 or more employees to adopt and enforce COVID-19 vaccination and other related safety safeguards and the Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard that imposes similar but more burdensome COVID-19 vaccination and other related safety and Recordkeeping requirements on healthcare organizations

The ETS and Healthcare ETS are key elements of a package of federal vaccine mandate and other added COVID-19 safety rules President Biden announced on September 9 he was directing federal agencies to impose on employers through a series of agency rules as part of his “Path Out Of The Pandemic.

The ETS and health care emergency temporary standard vaccination, testing and masking requirements add to existing OSHA guidance requiring employers to educate and train workers to use multiple safeguards to avoid and contain the spread of COVID-19 in their workplaces in accordance with these rules, OSHA’s general duty to provide a safe workplace, its anti-retaliation and anti-interference rules and other OSHA rules.

The OSHA COVID-19 mandates and companion rules that seek to require vaccination and other safeguards for federal workers, government contractors, facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid and certain educational and childcare programs touched off a wave of court challenges across the country, which have resulted in conflicting and often unstable injunctive rulings.

The Supreme Court scheduled the special session on Wednesday, December 22. It is anticipated that the resulting decision will be quickly forthcoming help to clarify the enforceability of other federal agency Covid-19 vaccination mandates rules.

OSHA COVID-19 ETS

The ETS OSHA issued as a temporary emergency standard on November. 5, 2021 currently covers employers with 100 or more employees. However comments published with the ETS indicate OSHA is considering extending the ETS to smaller employers.

Under the ETS, covered employers must develop, implement and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, unless they adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work. The ETS requires covered employers to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or adopt a and enforce a policy that requires workers either prove they are fully vaccinated or workers who remain unvaccinated to wear masks and produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. The ETS also imposes burdensome documentation and record keeping requirements.

The ETS is in addition to a separate mandate applicable to health care workers providing services to Medicare and Medicaid participating health care facilities. In June OSHA issued a different emergency temporary standard for certain healthcare workers that originally required nursing home and certain other care facilities to require and enforce vaccination of employees and other service providers. OSHA extended its health care emergency temporary standard to cover workers at most health care organizations following President Biden’s September 9 directives.

Along with OSHA’s issuance of the ETS and Healthcare ETS, the Safer Federal Worker Task Force, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Education also published rules seeking to implement the other aspects of the Biden vaccination mandate strategy.

Both the ETS and the health care emergency standards provide exceptions for and require covered employers to provide accommodations for disabilities and seriously held religious beliefs required by federal equal employment opportunity laws administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) while making clear that the covered employer must be able to demonstrate with evidence that accommodations were required as well as implement appropriate alternative safeguards to maintain workplace safety. Where the accommodation prevents vaccination, this generally means adherence to testing, masking, social distancing and other standards to provide for safety.

Employers walk a tightrope negotiating these dual obligations. Discrepancies in the language used by OSHA to describe an employer’s responsibility to determine whether and when accommodation is required in the ETS compared to language in existing EEOC guidance calling for employer deference to religious and disability requests raises ambiguity regarding the degree of deference the OSHA rules allow an employer to allow to the accommodation claims made by employees versus the EEOC.

In addition, employers also must contend with the challenges of managing retaliation and other claims from workers associated with COVID-19 safety practices. The highly subjective, fact specific nature of these determinations under either interpretation make these determinations challenging for employers. The risk of negotiating these challenges is further complicated by the exposure to likely retaliation charges under the OSHA or Civil Rights Act anti-retaliation rules that employers must negotiate when dealing with expectations and waive of accommodation inquiries and requests from employees.

Retaliation and interference protections often protect employees against adverse employment action for good faith questions about or participating in investigations or other protected activity regarding safety, discrimination or accommodation even when the employee was not entitled to the accommodation or other protection asserted.

The significance of the retaliation risk is highlighted by the prioritization of retaliation investigation and enforcement recently announced by both the EEOC and OSHA. In March, OSHA launched a national emphasis program focusing enforcement efforts on companies that put the largest number of workers at serious risk of contracting the coronavirus. The program also prioritizes employers who retaliate against workers for complaints about unsafe or unhealthy conditions, or for exercising other rights protecteds by federal law.

The EEOC and other Department of Labor agencies also are prioritizing retaliation and interference investigation and enforcement. On November 17, 2021 the EEOC announced its involvement in the new initiative to end retaliation against workers who exercise their protected labor and employment law rights by collaborating among these civil law enforcement agencies to protect workers on issues of unlawful retaliatory conduct, educating the public and engaging with employers, business organizations, labor organizations and civil rights groups in the coming year.

In furtherance of this effort, the EEOC updated its COVID-19 technical assistance to include more information about employer retaliation under the Civil Rights laws the EEOC enforces in pandemic-related employment situations. Key points shared in this new technical guidance include:

Job applicants and current and former employees are protected from retaliation by employers for asserting their rights under any of the EEOC-enforced anti-discrimination laws.
Protected activity can take many forms, including filing a charge of discrimination; complaining to a supervisor about coworker harassment; or requesting accommodation of a disability or a religious belief, practice, or observance, regardless of whether the request is granted or denied.
Additionally, the ADA prohibits not only retaliation for protected EEO activity, but also “interference” with an individual’s exercise of ADA rights.

These and other OSHA safety mandates, alone or coupled with the disability, religious accommodation, age and other equal employment opportunity nondiscrimination, and anti interference

Employers Face Significant Continuing Risks Despite Preliminary Injunctions Against COVID Vaccine Rules

While litigation over the validity of its ETS and other aspects of the Biden plan to mandate vaccination of millions of Americans, OSHA has said it is continuing to collect comments because it views the comment period as separate from the litigation. OSHA extended the comment deadline stakeholders additional time to review the ETS and collect information and data necessary for comment.

While awaiting the outcome of the litigation over the OSHA vaccine mandates, employers should use care to conduct themselves to mitigate their exposure to violations of other remaining OSHA safety and recordkeeping rules, age, disability, religious and other discrimination claims and retaliation and interference claims.

The preliminary injunctions against the vaccine mandate rules does not impact the exposure of employers to retaliation and interference charges that could arise from their handling of employee questions or opposition to compliance with employer policies, assertion of rights, expressions of concern, and other activity. That means retaliation and interference claims present as big or bigger threat as the rules themselves and last beyond the reach and validity of the rules.

Facing peril from all sides, employers must tread carefully in developing and administering their workplace COVID-19 vaccination and other safety policies to manage the exposures created from the resulting Catch-22 legal and political environment. Employees of course must will monitor the litigation and other regulatory developments. At the same time, employers should use when dealing with worker and other inquiries, expressions of concern and other dealings with employees and applicants regarding COVID-19 safety, leave, accommodation and other concerns as well as to document carefully and preserve other evidence necessary to support performance and other business justified employment actions against potential retaliation or discrimination challenges.

Employers should use care to protect sensitive discussions about how to design and administer their policies, respond to employees and other sensitive matters by seeking the advice of qualified legal counsel and discussing these and related matters within within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Employers should use care to carefully consider and document their decisions, including the basis and evidence supporting their justification in all workforce dealings keeping in mind that charges of retaliation or interference could arise from workforce actions not directly connected with an employee’s involvement in COVID-related concerns.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on SCOTUS To Hear Oral Arguments on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Enforceability On January 7 | ACA, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Emergency, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Injunctions Leave Employers With Significant Liability Challenges Even As OSHA Extends Comment Period on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine ETS

December 1, 2021

Employers face significant continuing risk from retaliation and other claims from workers associated with COVID-19 safety practices despite court-compelled delays in the Biden Administration’s efforts to implement its vaccination mandates and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announcement of its extension of the comment deadline for its now-enjoined COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Standard to January 19, 2022.

ETS & Other Federal Vaccine Mandates

The ETS is one of several vaccine mandate and other added COVID-19 safety rules President Biden announced on September 9 he directed federal agencies to impose on employers through a series of agency rules as part of his “Path Out Of The Pandemic” plan that include Executive Orders ordering:

OSHA to issue emergency rules that would require all employers with more than 100 employees to get vaccinated or be tested at least weekly;
OSHA and other federal regulations to require vaccinations for all federal workers, contractors and subcontractors;
OSHA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) rules to require COVID-⁠19 vaccinations for all health care workers at Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals and other health care settings;
Using Department of Education and federal funding measures to support vaccination and masking in schools; and
Calling on large entertainment venues to require proof of vaccination or testing for entry.

OSHA COVID-19 ETS

The highly subjective, fact specific nature of these determinations under either interpretation make these determinations challenging for employers. The risk of negotiating these challenges is further complicated by the exposure to likely retaliation charges under the OSHA or Civil Rights Act anti-retaliation rules that employers must negotiate when dealing with expectations and waive of accommodation inquiries and requests from employees.

Job applicants and current and former employees are protected from retaliation by employers for asserting their rights under any of the EEOC-enforced anti-discrimination laws.
Protected activity can take many forms, including filing a charge of discrimination; complaining to a supervisor about coworker harassment; or requesting accommodation of a disability or a religious belief, practice, or observance, regardless of whether the request is granted or denied.
Additionally, the ADA prohibits not only retaliation for protected EEO activity, but also “interference” with an individual’s exercise of ADA rights.

These and other OSHA safety mandates, alone or coupled with the disability, religious accommodation, age and other equal employment opportunity nondiscrimination, and anti interference

Litigation Challenging ETS & Other Federal Vaccine Mandates

Along with OSHA’s issuance of the ETS, the Safer Federal Worker Task Force, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Education also published rules seeking to implement the other aspects of the Biden vaccination mandate strategy.

The ETS and other rules also are facing court challenges. On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) (“ETS”). The court ordered that OSHA “take no steps to implement or enforce” the ETS “until further court order.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit now has jurisdiction over ETS challenges and DOL has filed a motion to lift the stay. While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation. Note that the comment period is separate from the litigation.

On Monday, November 29, 2021, for instance, a Federal District Court in Missouri v. Biden issued a preliminary injunction staying enforcement against the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire of the vaccine and other COVID-19 safety requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors imposed by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force COVID-19 Workplace Safety: Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors issued by website posting on September 24, 2021

Employers Face Significant Continuing Risks Despite Preliminary Injunctions Against COVID Vaccine Rules

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Injunctions Leave Employers With Significant Liability Challenges Even As OSHA Extends Comment Period on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine ETS | ACA, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Emergency, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Temporary Stay Of OSHA Vaccine ETS Fuels Continued Employer Risk & Uncertainty

November 22, 2021

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“OSHA”) has suspended implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard(“Rule”) in response to the November 12, 2021 5th Circuit Court of Appeals order staying implementation of the Rule – for now. While the action delays the deadline for covered employers to comply with the Rule, employers still remain exposed to other COVID-related discrimination, retaliation, safety and other claims.

One of a series of new federal rules adopted over the past few months that require businesses employing more than 100 employees, government contractors and subcontractors and health care providers participating in Medicare or Medicaid to implement and enforce COVID-19 vaccination and other safeguards, the Rule ordered covered employers to adopt and enforce requirements that employees to get vaccinated or undergo regular testing and wear masks unless the employee qualifies for a religious or disability exception. Similar but tighter vaccination mandates are required in a separate OSHA emergency temporary standards for health care workers, a new condition of participation requirement for covered health care organizations to participate in Medicare or Medicaid, and conditions of eligibility to enter into federal government contracts over $250,000.

Last week, the 5th Circuit ordered that OSHA “take no steps to implement or enforce” the ETS “until further court order.” The Rule also faces challenges in several other Circuit Courts of Appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the Rule.

While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation.

Pending final resolution of court challenges to the Rule, the 5th Circuit stay temporarily puts on hold the Rule OSHA published November 5, 2021, which generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to adopt and enforce COVID-19 vaccination or alternative testing and masking requirements for all employees in their workplaces by December 4, 2021.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of challenges to the OSHA Rule, employees face significant risk negotiating vaccine and other COVID-19 safety policies from employee discrimination, retaliation and safety challenges and inquiries. The suspension adds more uncertainty and controversy to employers struggling to develop and administer Covid-19 vaccination and other safety policies around often conflicting federal and state rules in a highly charged political and litigious environment fraught with discrimination and retaliation claims risks fueled to new heights by new OSHA and EEOC retaliation guidance published last week.

Aside from OSHA’s announced confidence that the 5th Circuit’s temporary stay will be removed as litigation over the Rule progresses, the 5th Circuit order technically does not stop implementation of OSHA’s separate emergency temporary standard requiring vaccination for health care workers or new rules adding COVID-19 vaccination requirements as conditions of program participation for government contractors and Medicare participating health care providers.

Regardless of the outcome of the 5th Circuit ordered stay, the uncertainty created from differences among these federal and state rules and the 5th Circuit ordered stay provides tinder for retaliation claims against employers regardless of how the business chooses to respond to the stay.

Even if the mandates are enjoined are inapplicable to an organization, opposition to compliance, questions, expressions of concern, and other activity can support retaliation claims. That means retaliation and interference claims present as big or bigger threat as the rules themselves and last beyond the reach and validity of the rules.

Facing peril from all sides, employers must tread carefully in developing and administering their workplace COVID-19 vaccination and other safety policies to manage the exposures created from the resulting Catch-22 legal and political environment. Employees of course must will monitor the litigation and other regulatory developments. At the same time, employers should use when dealing with worker and other inquiries, expressions of concern and other dealings with employees and applicants regarding COVID-19 SAFETY, leave, accommodation and other concerns as well as to document carefully and preserve other evidence necessary to support performance and other business justified employment actions against potential retaliation or discrimination challenges.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Temporary Stay Of OSHA Vaccine ETS Fuels Continued Employer Risk & Uncertainty | ADA, Affirmative Action, compliance, Corporate Compliance, COVID, COVID-19, Disaster, Disease Management, Diversity, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, Government Contractors, health Care, HR, Human Resources, Joint Employer, Labor Management Relations, Management, OFCCP, OSHA, Pandemic, vaccination mandate, vaccine mandate, Worker Classification, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Most OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine & Other Mandates Take Effect 12/4 For 100+ Workforces As OSHA Considers Extending Mandates To Smaller Workplaces

November 4, 2021

December 4, 2022 is the deadline for employers 100 or more employees to comply with the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration COVID-19 Vaccination Emergency Temporary Standard Interim Final Rule (“ETS”) implementing the employer vaccine, masking and testing mandates President Biden announced his administration intended to impose in September. The ETS is scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register tomorrow. (November 5, 2021). The ETS establishes workplace vaccination, vaccination verification, face covering and testing requirements to address “the grave danger of COVID-19 in the workplace for employers of 100 or more employees. The request for comments included in the Preamble to the ETS indicates that OSHA also is considering extending the rules to apply to smaller employers. Businesses employing more than 100 employees must prepare to comply by December 4, 2022, except that the compliance deadline for certain testing requirements for nonvaccinated employees is January 4, 2021. As the request for comments indicates OSHA is considering extending the rule to businesses with fewer than 100 employees, businesses also should critically evaluate the impact of the rules on their operations and submit comments during the comment period.

Biden Administration COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy

The ETS implements part of a series of COVID-19 vaccination mandates President Biden announced in September that his administration planned to adopt to substantially increase the number Americans covered by vaccination requirements, including:

OSHA to issue emergency rules that would require all employers with more than 100 employees to get vaccinated or be tested at least weekly;
OSHA and other federal regulations to require vaccinations for all federal workers, contractors and subcontractors;
OSHA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) rules to require COVID-⁠19 vaccinations for all health care workers at Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals and other health care settings;
Using Department of Education and federal funding measures to support vaccination and masking in schools; and
Calling on large entertainment venues to require proof of vaccination or testing for entry.

Regarding the OSHA mandate, President Biden’s “Path out of the Pandemic COVID-19 Action Plan” states OSHA is developing an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that will require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work.

Along with OSHA’s issuance of the ETS, HHS, OFCCP, the Department of Education also are moving forward to implement the other aspects of the Biden vaccination mandate strategy.

These new mandates are in addition to continuing to encourage employers to use and train workers on using multiple safeguards to avoid And contain the spread of COVID-19 in their workplaces.

Noncompliance with the mandates could put covered employers at significant risk.

Among other things, of course, is the potential OSHA liability. OSHA already has made clear it’s willingness to sanction employers for violating CoVID emergency standards by nailing AMA Health Holdings LLC, for and Lakewood Resource and Referral Center Inc. (“CHEMED”) for failing to comply with COVID-19 safety protocols issued in June.

In June OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard to protect healthcare workers from contracting coronavirus. In March, OSHA launched a national emphasis program focusing enforcement efforts on companies that put the largest number of workers at serious risk of contracting the coronavirus. The program also prioritizes employers who retaliate against workers for complaints about unsafe or unhealthy conditions, or for exercising other rights protected by federal law.

OSHA cited the facility’s operator, AMA Health Holdings LLC, with two citations for failing to develop and implement effective measures to mitigate the spread of the virus and not recording each work-related illness.

The AMA Holdings OSHA action demonstrates OSHA’s commitment to investigate complaints of violations is its COVID emergency standards and fine employers that violate them.

The citations against AMA Health Holdings follow OSHA’s earlier citation of CHEMED for retaliating against employees for questioning the adequacy of COVID safety at the dental practice where they worked.

Government contractor and healthcare employers also could face program exclusions or penalties under other elements of the Biden Administration vaccine strategy.

Additionally, employers should keep in mind that improperly handled employee questions or statements of concern about the adequacy of workplace COVID -19 safeguards could create retaliation or whistleblower risks. The threat for retaliation liability extends well beyond employers actually covered by the impending mandates. Regardless of what the rules actually eventually provide, employees of covered and uncovered employers are likely to have questions about the adequacy of safeguards and their workplace rights. These questions could come from people believing their entitled to work without being vaccinated, employees a certain rate to takeoff time for vaccination or other reasons with or without pay, employees asking or asserting rights to paid time off for vaccination or other reasons or a host of other matters. Retaliation protections can arise even when the employee doesn’t qualify for the rights asserted as long as the employee can demonstrate that the request is based in a good faith belief that the right might exist. Consequently, employers should use care to investigate and respond carefully to these concerns.

More Information

The author of this update, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, will discuss these and other federal COVID-19 vaccination and other workforce requirements as a panelist on the “COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates & Incentives” virtual seminar the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits will host on November 12, 2021 beginning at Noon Central Time.

Ms. Stamer also is finalizing an updated summary of the new ETS, which Solutions Law Press, Inc. has arranged to make available to interested readers. If you or someone you know would like a copy of this resource, email here .

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Most OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine & Other Mandates Take Effect 12/4 For 100+ Workforces As OSHA Considers Extending Mandates To Smaller Workplaces | Child Safety, Construction, Corporate Compliance, COVID, COVID-19, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, OSHA, Pandemic, Retaliation, Safety, vaccine mandate | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Free CDC COVID-19 Communication Resources

July 13, 2020

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) One-Stop Shop provides quick access to communication resources. Topic-specific toolkits make it easy to access, leverage, and share CDC resources. These new toolkits contain videos, social media posts, PSAs, print resources, checklists, FAQs, and web resources for the following populations

• Young Adults: Age 15-21

• Childcare Programs and Summer Camps

• Youth Sports

• K-12 Schools

• Business and Workplaces

• Community and Faith-based Organizations

• General Public

• Domestic Travelers

• Shared and Congregate Housing

• Parks and Recreational Facilities

Access these tools here.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, construction, manufacturing, staffing and workforce and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international employer and other management, employee benefit and other clients to assess, manage and defend joint employer and other worker classifications and practices under the FLSA and other federal and state laws including both advising and and assisting employers to minimize joint employer and other FLSA liability and defending a multitude of employers against joint employer and other FLSA and other worker classification liability. She also has been heavily involved in advocating for the Trump Administration’s restoration of more historical principles for determining and enforcing joint employer liability over the past several years.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded books, articles and other publications, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her scholarship, coaching, legislative and regulatory advocacy, leadership and mentorship on wage and hour, worker classification and a diverse range of other labor and employment, employee benefits, health and safety, education, performance management, privacy and data security, leadership and governance, and other management concerns within the American Bar Association (ABA), the International Information Security Association, the Southwest Benefits Association, and a variety of other international, national and local professional, business and civic organizations including highly regarded works on worker reclassification and joint employment liability under the FLSA and other laws published by the Bureau of National Affairs and others. Examples of these involvements include her service as the ABA Intellectual Property Law Section Law Practice Management Committee; the ABA International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee Vice Chair-Policy; a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative and Marketing Chair; Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group and Vice Chair of its Law Practice Management Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Southwest Benefits Association Board member; past Texas Association of Business State Board Member, BACPAC Committee Meeting, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair; past Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Executive Committee; former SHRM Region IV Chair and National Consultants Forum Board Member; for WEB Network of Benefit Professionals National Board Member and Dallas Chapter Chair; former Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member; founding Board Member, past President and Patient Empowerment and Health Care Heroes founder for the Alliance for Health Care Excellence; former Gulf States TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator and Board member; past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see http://www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author 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 author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2020 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 Free CDC COVID-19 Communication Resources | COVID, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Pandemic, school | Tagged: COVID, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Management, school | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Should Confirm Using Benefits, Meeting Mandates Of Special COVID-19 Tax Rules

June 26, 2020

Earlier this week, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) announced that employee benefit plan participants that already took a required minimum distribution (RMD) in 2020 from certain retirement accounts now has the opportunity through August 31, 2020 to roll those funds back into a retirement account following the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act RMD waiver for 2020. The announcement of this relief covers one of a long and growing list of special tax and other COVID-19 responsive special rules and requirements that may change requirements, provide special relief or both for businesses and individuals that every business leader and individual should carefully monitor and respond to appropriately.

Retirement Plan Rollover Relief

On July 23, 2020, the IRS announced its extension of the 60-day rollover period for any RMDs already taken this year to August 31, 2020 to give taxpayers time to take advantage of this opportunity in Notice 2020-51 (PDF). The Notice also answers questions regarding the waiver of RMDs for 2020 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act.

The CARES Act enabled any taxpayer with an RMD due in 2020 from a defined-contribution retirement plan, including a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, or an IRA, to skip those RMDs this year. This includes anyone who turned age 70 1/2 in 2019 and would have had to take the first RMD by April 1, 2020. This waiver does not apply to defined-benefit plans.

In addition to the rollover opportunity, an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution from an IRA of an amount that would have been an RMD in 2020 can repay the distribution to the IRA by August 31, 2020. The notice provides that this repayment is not subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation and the restriction on rollovers for inherited IRAs.

The notice provides two sample amendments that employers may adopt to give plan participants and beneficiaries whose RMDs are waived a choice as to whether or not to receive the waived RMD.

Other COVID-19 Tax Rules & Relief

The guidance and relief in Notice 2020-51 highlights only one of a long list of special COVID-19 associated tax rules and relief that could apply to a business, its employees or employee benefit plan participants or both including the following:

Along with these tax rules, businesses and their employees also may be impacted by a broad range of special federal and state labor and employment and other rules adopted in response to the continuing COVID-19 health care emergency and its fallout. Businesses and their leaders should carefully review and monitor these and other COVID-19 specific rules to ensure that their businesses don’t trigger unanticipated liability by failing to meet critical requirements or to ensure that they take full advantage of all available relief.

More Information

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 legal and operational management work, coaching, public policy and regulatory affairs leadership and advocacy, training and public speaking and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally on an demand, special project and ongoing basis with health industry, health plan and insurance and other businesses of all types, government and community organizations and their leaders, spoken and published extensively on workforce and other services, compensation and benefits, and related tax; insurance; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other management concerns.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending and training health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, community organizations and others about HIPAA and other privacy concerns and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Her involvement with HIPAA and other privacy and data concerns has taken place as part of her more than 30 years involvement working with with public and private health industry, health insurance and other employers and organizations of all sizes, employee benefit plans, insurance and financial services, health industry and a broad range of public and private domestic and international business, community and government organizations and leaders on pandemic and other health and safety, workforce and performance preparedness, risks and change management, disaster preparedness and response and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life. A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, privacy and data security, workforce, health care and other policy and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organizations workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and shares insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications and public speaking. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Comments Off on Businesses Should Confirm Using Benefits, Meeting Mandates Of Special COVID-19 Tax Rules | 401(k), Accommodation, ADA, adea, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Child Safety, Civil Rights, Claims, Corporate Compliance, COVID, Data Breach, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, Disaster, Discrimination, Disease Management, EBSA, Electronic Medical Record, Emergency, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Managed Care, Management, OFCCP, OSHA, Privacy, Rehabilitation Act, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Ezekiel Elliott COVID-19 Diagnosis Disclosure Outrage Highlights Need To Handle COVID-19 & Other Medical Information With Care

June 16, 2020

While most COVID-19 test results won’t draw the widespread coverage and public interest that Elliott’s diagnosis did, businesses generally and health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses specifically need to recognize that coverage of the Elliott outrage will heighten awareness and therefore their need to properly handle and protect COVID-19 or other infectious disease and other testing, diagnosis, treatment and other medical and disability information collected or encountered in the course of their operation through the current COVID-19 health care emergency and otherwise in their own organizations.

ADA Responsibilities of Employers In Handling Medical Information

Protecting COVID-19 testing and other medical information isn’t just a concern for covered entities and their business associates, however. Businesses that are not covered entities also generally should use care in their collection, use, protection and disclosure of COVID-19 testing and other medical information to mitigate their potential liability under the disability discrimination requirements of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. For instance, along with prohibiting employers covered by the ADA from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities and requiring those employers to provide reasonable accommodations to such employees, the ADA also regulates the ability of covered employers to perform or require medical testing and imposes specific medical confidentiality requirements on all covered employers. See e.g., What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.

The ADA’s medical confidentiality requirements dictate that covered employers maintain medical information and records about employees and applicants in separate, confidential files. Covered employers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of medical information and records and cannot disclose it without authorization from the subject employee except under the specific conditions allowed by the ADA.

EEOC guidance provided in its publication entitled Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans With Disabilities Act as updated as of March 19, 2020 emphasizes that covered employers remain accountable for complying with the requirements of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act during the current COVID-19 health care emergency and other pandemics.

While the EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers in its publication What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws
Technical Assistance Questions and Answers as updated on June 11, 2020 recognizes temperature checks and certain other COVID-19 inquiries to screen for COVID-19 exposure or infection might be permitted under the safety exception to the ADA during the current COVID-19 health care emergency, that and other EEOC guidance makes clear that covered employers remain responsible for ensuring that the ADA medical confidentiality requirements are met with regarding to testing and related medical information. As a result, all ADA-covered employers generally and health care employers specifically are urged to use care both in the administration and collection of information regarding COVID-19 testing and diagnosis, and the protection of the confidentiality of COVID-19 and other medical information and records collected in the course of administering employment, safety, medical leave or other absence or other operations throughout the COVID-19 health care emergency.

Added HIPAA & Texas HIPAA Concerns For Health Plans & Other HIPAA Covered Entities

Assuming that the disclosure of Elliott’s information is traced to a testing provider, laboratory or other health care provider, health plan or insurer, health care clearing house subject to HIPAA (“covered entity”), a service provider acting as a business associate to a covered entity, or a member of their workforce, the unauthorized release of Elliott’s test results, that he underwent the testing, or other medical information, Elliott’s complaint about a possible HIPAA violation could be well-founded as both HIPAA and the somewhat broader provisions of the Texas Medical Privacy Act (“Tex-HIPAA”) (hereafter collectively the “HIPAA Laws”) both generally prohibit unauthorized disclosure of protected medical information such as his COVID-19 test or test results to the media.

The COVID-19 test results and of “individually identifiable personal health information” about Elliott and his encounter created, used, access or disclosed by the testing facility or other health care provider, a health plan, health care clearinghouse (“covered entity”) or a member of its workforce or a subcontractor acting as a business associated qualify as “protected health information subject to HIPAA’s privacy, security, breach and privacy rights protections of HIPAA and Tex-HIPAA.

The HIPAA and Tex-HIPAA prohibition against unauthorized disclosure of protected health information to the media stem from the HIPAA Laws’ broader requirement that covered entities and business associates affirmatively safeguard protected health information against unauthorized use, access or disclosure and sweeping prohibition against their disclosing or allowing the disclosure of protected health information without a HIPAA-compliant authorization except under the narrow and specifically delineated exceptions identified in the rule, none of which appear relevant to the media disclosure objected to by Elliott from the currently available public information.

Both HIPAA Laws expressly prohibit unauthorized disclosure of protected health information by covered entities or their business associates except under the specifically detailed conditions specified in one or more exceptions to this general rule. Assuming all relevant conditions to qualify for the exception are met, HIPAA does allow covered entities and business associates treatment, payment, operations, public health activities or another situation meeting all applicable requirements of an express exception to the HIPAA prohibition against disclosure.

The federal agency primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of HIPAA, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) regulatory guidance and enforcement history clearly communicates OCR’s view that covered entities or business associates violate HIPAA by disclosing protected health information to the media or other third parties without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from the subject of the information except under the specific circumstances described in an applicable Privacy Rule exception.

In its May 5, 2020 Guidance on Covered Health Care Providers and Restrictions on Media Access to Protected Health Information about Individuals in Their Facilities (“5/5 Guidance”), for instance, OCR specifically reminded HIPAA covered health care providers that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not permit them to give media and film crews access to protected health information including access to facilities where patients’ protected health information will be accessible without the patients’ prior authorization. has made clear that testing facilities and other health care providers generally remain accountable for complying with the HIPAA Privacy Rule that prohibits unauthorized use, access or disclosure of test results and other protected health information except as specifically allowed in the applicable HIPAA Law.

The 5/5 Guidance specifically states, “The COVID-19 public health emergency does not alter the HIPAA Privacy Rule’s existing restrictions on disclosures of protected health information (PHI) to the media.’ Additionally, it states confirmed that even during the current COVID-19 public health emergency, covered health care providers remain required to obtain a valid HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI will be accessible to the media before the media is given access to that PHI. In this regard, the 5/5 Guidance states, As explained in prior guidance,1 HIPAA does not permit covered health care providers to give the media, including film crews, access to any areas of their facilities where patients’ PHI will be accessible in any form (e.g., written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form), without first obtaining a written HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI would be accessible to the media. 2 Additionally, covered health care providers may not require a patient to sign a HIPAA authorization as a condition of receiving treatment. The guidance clarifies that masking or obscuring patients’ faces or identifying information before broadcasting a recording of a patient is not sufficient, as a valid HIPAA authorization is still required before giving the media such access. Additionally, the guidance describes reasonable safeguards that should be used to protect the privacy of patients whenever the media is granted access to facilities.

OCR’s positions on disclosures to the media in the 5/5 Guidance reaffirm OCR’s longstanding interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA as prohibiting disclosures of PHI and media access to areas where patients or their protected health information might be visible or accessible is long standing.

In June, 2013, for instance, OCR sent a clear message to covered entities and business associates not to make unconsented disclosures of protected health information to or allow media access to areas where patients or their protected health information could be accessed or observed when it required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay $275,000 to resolve OCR HIPAA charges stemming from SRMC’s unauthorized disclosure of protected health information to multiple media outlets as part of a public relations effort to mitigate damage from fraud and misconduct allegations made against it by the patient. See HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce.

OCR subsequently reinforced its warning to covered entities and business associates about unauthorized disclosures of protected health information in a 2016 Frequently Asked Question (Media FAQ) that discussed covered entities HIPAA responsibilities when dealing with the media. The Media FAQ was issued in conjunction with OCR’s collection of its $2.2 million settlement with New York-Presbyterian Hospital and a series of other settlements totaling $999,000 from three other health care providers accused of violating HIPAA by allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient protected health information was accessible without first obtaining a HIPAA compliant written authorization from each patient or other subject present or whose protected health information otherwise would be accessible to the media. See $999K Price Hospitals Pay To Settle HIPAA Privacy Charges From Allowing ABC To Film Patients Without Authorization.

In the Media FAQ, OCR stated HIPAA required covered entities to obtain prior written authorization before disclosing protected health information to the media or allowing media to film or access exam rooms or other areas where patients or protected health information could be observed or accessed. The Media FAQ also stated that masking or blurring the identity of the patient or their specific information was not an adequate substitute for written authorization and that covered entities also were responsible for ensuring that reasonable safeguards were in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI in areas where media is allowed access where prior authorization has not been obtained. While stressing the importance of compliance with these requirements, however, the Media FAQ clarified that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other Covered Entity also highlighted certain other limited circumstances where HIPAA might allow limited disclosure of protected health information to the media in accordance with specific provisions of the Privacy Rule about an incapacitated patient when in the patient’s best interest; or disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to the media or any other person any person where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name.

In the intervening years, OCR periodically has issued additional reminders to covered entities about HIPAA’s general prohibition against unconsented disclosures to the media as well as sanctioned harshly various covered entities for violating these prohibitions. In 2017, OCR required the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS), to pay OCR $2.4 million to settle charges it violated HIPAA by issuing a press release to the media that shared the name and other protected health information about a patient suspected of using a fraudulent insurance card to obtain care at a clinic without the patient’s prior HIPAA-compliant authorization. While OCR concluded a report made MHHS made to law enforcement about the patient was allowable under the Privacy Rule, OCR found MHHS violated the Privacy Rule by issuing the press release disclosing the patient’s name and other PHI without authorization from the patient and also by failing to timely document the sanctioning of its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s information. See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.

While OCR has announced certain temporary enforcement relief from a narrow set of HIPAA requirements during the COVID-19 health care emergency as applied to certain qualifying testing facilities, telemedicine providers and other specific health care providers engaging in certain types of health care during the COVID-19 health care emergency, OCR consistently has made clear that its COVID-19 HIPAA relief is very limited in scope, applicability and duration and in no way waives the prohibition against unauthorized disclosure to the media or other third parties not generally permitted under HIPAA. See e.g., 5/5 Guidance; OCR Issues Guidance on How Health Care Providers Can Contact Former COVID-19 Patients About Blood and Plasma Donation Opportunities; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Community-Based Testing Sites During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion to Allow Uses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information by Business Associates for Public Health and Health Oversight Activities During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Issues Bulletin on Civil Rights Laws and HIPAA Flexibilities That Apply During the COVID-19 Emergency; OCR Issues Guidance to Help Ensure First Responders and Others Receive Protected Health Information about Individuals Exposed to COVID-19; OCR Issues Guidance on Telehealth Remote Communications Following Its Notification of Enforcement Discretion; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency. To the contrary, OCR’s announcement of the 5/5 guidance quotes OCR Director Roger Severino, as stating “Hospitals and health care providers must get authorization from patients before giving the media access to their medical information; obscuring faces after the fact just doesn’t cut it,” Severino added.

Minimize Exposures By Preventing Unauthorized Media & Other Disclosures

Even without Mr. Elliott’s outrage heightening awareness about HIPAA’s prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of protected health information to the media, the recent warning about HIPAA’s restrictions on media disclosure and access to protected health information and patient treatment areas in OCR’s 5/5 Guidance alone should serve as a strong incentive for covered entities and business associate promptly to reverify that the adequacy of their current policies, practices and training to prevent inappropriate media disclosures of protected health information and otherwise defend their compliance with OCR’s interpretation of HIPAA’s requirements for dealing with the media. Predictable heightened patient and public awareness and expectations about these and other HIPAA responsibilities fueled by the widespread media coverage of Mr. Elliott’s COVID-19 test results and his outrage about the unauthorized disclosure of his test results makes it more important than ever that health care providers and other covered entities and business associates take steps to prepare to respond to foreseeable complaints and questions by other patients, their families and others.

As part of these efforts, most covered entities and business associates may want to consider, at minimum, reconfirming the adequacy and understanding of their current media and other disclosure policies and practices, as well as sending strategic communications to their business associates and members of their workforce reminding them of the covered entity’s policies regarding media access and disclosures.

As part of these activities, covered entities should consider conducting a well-documented assessment of their current policies, practices and workforce training on disclosure of information to the media and other parties generally, as well as policies on allowing media or other parties to enter, film, photograph or record within their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities. Along with these efforts, most covered entities also may want to consider also reminding workforce members that their patient privacy responsibilities also requires that they not share or discuss patient protected health information, film, photograph, or otherwise record, patients or areas where patients or patient protected health information is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient and the consent of their organization.

Since covered entities and members of their workforce also are likely to be subject to other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by the HIPAA Laws such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law or statutory privacy, theft of likeness or other statutory or common law tort claims and exposures. Covered entities and business associates generally should consider whether other steps are advisable to manage these exposures along with managing their HIPAA Law compliance.

Given the high incidence of COVID-19 exposure and infection within their workplace, covered entities, business associates and other employers should use care fulfill their HIPAA Law relevant employment law confidentiality responsibilities when dealing with testing or other medical information about employees. In this respect, along with any HIPAA Law obligations that a covered entity or business associate has in handling medical information about a patient who also is an employee or family member of an employee, covered entities also should use care to ensure that medical confidentiality requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and other applicable employment laws are met.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, Covered Entities should consider consulting with or engaging experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

Finally, covered entities should keep in mind that HIPAA and other medical privacy compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, covered entities and business associates also should use care both to monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

More Information

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 legal and operational management work, coaching, public policy and regulatory affairs leadership and advocacy, training and public speaking and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally on an demand, special project and ongoing basis with health industry, health plan and insurance and other business, government and community organizations and their leaders, spoken and published extensively on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, as well as other health care and health benefits; human resources, employee benefits and other workforce and services; insurance; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other management concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Comments Off on Ezekiel Elliott COVID-19 Diagnosis Disclosure Outrage Highlights Need To Handle COVID-19 & Other Medical Information With Care | Accommodation, ADA, adea, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Child Safety, Civil Rights, Claims, Corporate Compliance, COVID, Data Breach, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, Disaster, Discrimination, Disease Management, EBSA, Electronic Medical Record, Emergency, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Managed Care, Management, OFCCP, OSHA, Privacy, Rehabilitation Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules

May 8, 2019

U.S. employers should start giving clear feedback to Congress about proposals to impose new federal paid family leave requirements on U.S. employers likely to move quickly through Congress given strong bipartisan Congressional and Presidential support. The push for enactment of federal paid leave legislation comes amid the enactment of a patchwork of state and local state paid leave laws over the past decade.

Strong bi-partisan Congressional support for expanded federal support for paid family leave was evident from statements and testimony at the House Ways and Means Committee Full Committee Hearing on Paid Family and Medical Leave: Helping Workers and Employers Succeed this morning.

In fact, Republican Representative Tom Brady, the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, stated in his opening statement at the start of the hearing, “Today the question isn’t whether to expand paid family leave, but how best to achieve it.”

With the majority of Congress supporting federal legislation to expand the availability of paid family leave, U.S. employers should make sure to communicate their preferences about the “how” to Congress whole time remains to influence those decisions.

While both parties and the President Trump support expanded federal support for paid leave, the two Parties differ widely about the how federal legislation should promote paid family leave.

Republicans generally are urging the extension and support the “carrot” incentive approach they began in the last Congress when they led the enactment of The Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit, doubling of the Child Tax Credit to its largest amount in history, increase of the Child Tac Credit refundability, and expansion of its availability to 8 million more families as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new paid leave credit reimburses qualifying businesses up to 25 percent of the cost of providing paid leave to their workers. In this first-ever pilot program, businesses can get help for offering up to 12 weeks of paid leave. Republicans now support continuation and possible expansion of these incentives.

In contrast, Democrats advocate Congress using a “stick” approach by mandating that employers provide paid family leave or government sponsored programs through a plethora of proposals including, for instance instance:

S. 840, the Healthy Families Act and H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act would require covered employees of 15 or more employees to provide 1 hour of paid sick leave for care of self or a family member for every 30 hours an employee works that employees could carryover to subsequent years if not used with substantial penalties imposed employers; and

H.R. 1185: FAMILY Act introduced by Democrat Representative Rosa DeLauro with 185 co-sponsors would establish government sponsored accounts to provide paid family leave.

In his comments this morning, Representative Brady noted the need to tailor paid mandates to account for differences in employer needs, stating: “As we work to expand access to paid medical leave, there are real concerns that a new one-size-fits-all Washington mandate limits family flexibility, could be extremely costly, and will lead to higher taxes on workers, reduced job benefits, or harmful cuts in education, Social Security, or Medicare to pay for the new mandate.

in addition, before the hearing the highest ranking Republicans on the Subcommittees for Select Revenue Measures, Worker and Family Support, and Social Security respectively, Representatives Kevin Brady, Adrian Smith, Jackie Walorski, and Tom Reed, sent a letter to Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA), urging the emphasis of incentives over “one size, fits all mandates.”

With both parties pushing to enact their preferred paid family leave approach, employers concerned about the cost and other challenges of a federal paid family leave mandate should review and provide feedback to key Congressional committees and members as soon as possible.

If you want addition information or assistance in reviewing or responding to these proposals, please contact the author directly.

We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’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:

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. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

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.

©2019 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 Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules | compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Family Leave, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement

March 27, 2019

The just announced March 31, 2019 update of the the Annual Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) hiring benchmark for federal government contractors and subcontractors changes to 5.9% provides an important reminder to U.S. employers to review and tighten the compliance of their recruiting, hiring, employment, compensation and benefits, and other policies and practices to withstand growing scrutiny and enforcement risks under federal laws.

Government contractors, subcontractors and other U.S businesses should reconfirm their compliance with the new benchmark and other VEVRAA requirements for dealing with veterans in light of the Trump Administration’s continuing emphasis on enforcing it and other federal laws protecting active duty military and veteran servicemen and women. As part of these enforcement efforts the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has announced it plans to incorporate VEVRAA Focused Reviews into the Corporate Scheduling Announcement List next fiscal year.

The Department of Labor announced the new 5.9% 2019 benchmark today (March 27, 2019). At the same time, it also updated national and state information in the VEVRAA Benchmark Database for federal contractors and subcontractors who calculate an individualized hiring benchmark using the five-factor method.

With already large active duty and veteran population set to grow as the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and other deployments continues, the need for employers to properly honor the rights of active duty and returning service members under VEVRAA, USERRA, the expanded military related medical leave rules of the Family & Medical Leave Act and other applicable laws is more important than ever. For many businesses, active duty and veteran service members constitute valuable sources of qualified workers amid an increasingly competitive labor market. On the other hands, the special legal obligations and protections afforded these workers requires that businesses use care to meet these obligations. Failing to meet or exceed hiring benchmarks or other noncompliance with federal requirements and goals can cause federal contractors and subcontractors to incur liability for breaching federal contracts and laws. In addition, employers generally face substantial employment liability for violating VEVRRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act or other applicable federal or state laws. See, e.g. Enforcement e.g., Michael Sipos and Gary Smith v. FlightSafety Services Corporation, Co. Consent Decree (April 4, 2013); Mervin Jones v. Jerome County Sheriff’s Office, ID complaint (January 7, 2013); Service Members to Receive $39 Million for Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah; Justice Department Reaches $12 Million Settlement to Resolve Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by Capital One; and Justice Department Files Complaint Against Forsyth County, North Carolina, Sheriff for Violating the Employment Rights of Army National Guard Soldier.

VEVRRA & USERRA Protections For Active Duty Military & Veterans

Affirmative action hiring by government contractors and subcontractors is one of the VEVRRA requirements for government contractors and subcontractors to provide assistance to and protect returning veterans from employment discrimination.

One of two key federal laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against returning veterans, VEVRRA applies only to government contractors and subcontractors. The other law, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), applies to virtually all U.S. employers.

Among other things, VEVRAA and its implementing regulations impose affirmative action requirements that require federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor and improve efforts to recruit and hire “protected veterans.” Protected veterans generally include veterans who are:

Disabled veterans: Those who are “entitled to compensation…under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs” or “those who were released from active duty because of a service-connected disability;
Recently separated veterans;
Active duty wartime or campaign veterans;
Campaign badge veterans; and
Armed Forces service medal veterans.

Among other things, VEVRAA and its implementing Final Regulations generally require government contractors and subcontractors:

To set a hiring benchmark by either: (1) adopting a benchmark based on the national percentage of veterans currently in the workforce (5.9% effective March 31, 2019); or (2) creating an individualized benchmark based on their own interpretation of the best available data nationally and within their state/region.
Invite voluntary self-identification of applicants and employees as protected veterans. Pre-offer invitation to self-identify will involve asking whether the applicant believes that s/he is a protected veteran under VEVRAA without asking about the particular category of protection. Post-offer self-identification will request information regarding the specific category of protected veteran status. For Sample self-identification forms for both pre- and post-offer forms, see Appendix B Part 60-300 of the Final Regulation.
Comply with OFCCP reviews including providing on-site and off-site access to documents needed for compliance and focused reviews.
Track and report the effectiveness of veteran recruiting and hiring efforts by collecting specified data, which also must be retained for three years.
Provide access to job listings that identify the employer as a federal contractor in a format that can be used by veterans’ Employment Service Delivery Systems (ESDS).
Use mandated language in federal contracts (including subcontracts) to communicate the contractor’s obligations to employ and advance protected veterans.
Find and use appropriate outreach and positive recruitment activities like the Department of Defense Transition Assistance Program; the National Resource Directory and other sources contractorsfeel will be helpful in identifying and attracting veterans.

While VEVRRA only applies to government contractors and subcontractors, USERRA generally applies to all employers.

USERRA generally provides that an individual who leaves a job to serve in the uniformed services is generally entitled to continue medical coverage for up to 26 months while absent for a qualifying military leave, reemployment by the previous employer upon timely return from military leave and, upon reemployment, to restoration of service, promotion, benefits and other rights of employment.

As part of these reemployment rights, qualifying service members timely returning from military leave are entitled to receive credit for benefits, including employee pension plan benefits, that would have accrued but for the employee’s absence due to the military service. USERRA’s pension-related provisions generally require that pension plans treat a service member who is called to active duty as if the service member had no break in service for purpose of the administration of pension benefits when the service member timely returns to employment at the end of a military leave. In addition to these pension rights, USERRA also requires employers honor other rights to employment, promotion and other benefits and rights of employment.

Beyond these VEVRRA and USERRA employment rights, service members taking or returning from active duty often enjoy various other employment and other protections under various other federal and state laws, many of which have been expanded in recent years.

As many veterans suffer return with physical, cognitive or emotional injuries and conditions, veteran applicants and employees may qualify for the disability discrimination, accommodation, privacy and other protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, in the case of government contractors and subcontractors, the Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Under requirements of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), creditors including a pension plan, employer loan program or credit union generally are required to drop interest charges down to 6 percent on debt owed by those called to active duty for the period of such military service. Further, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the loan will not fail to be a qualified loan under ERISA solely because the interest rate is capped by SSCRA. These and other provisions of federal law often require pension and profit-sharing plans that allow plan loans to change loan terms and tailor other special treatment of participants who are on military leave.

In addition to the specific protection given to a service member, employers also need to be ready to honor certain family leave protections afforded to qualifying family members or caregivers of service members added to the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in recent years. As amended to include these military leave related protections, the FMLA may require certain employees who are the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of a military member to take to 12 weeks of FMLA leave during any 12-month period to address the most common issues that arise when a military member is deployed to a foreign country, such as attending military sponsored functions, making appropriate financial and legal arrangements, and arranging for alternative childcare. This provision applies to the families of members of both the active duty and reserve components of the Armed Forces. Meanwhile, the “Military Caregiver Leave” provisions added to the FMLA may entitle certain employees who are the spouse, son, daughter, parent or next of kin of a covered service member to up to 26 weeks of FMLA leave during a single 12-month period to care for the service member who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a serious injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty on active duty. These provisions apply to the families of members of both the active duty and reserve components of the Armed Forces. The expansion of these requirements, updating of regulation, and rising enforcement by private plaintiffs and the government make it advisable that businesses take all necessary steps to ensure their employment practices, employee benefit plans, fringe benefit programs and other practices are updated and administered to comply with the current requirements of VEVRRA, USERAA, SSCRA, the FMLA and other applicable federal and state laws.

Special care also generally is needed when designing and administering employment based health benefit programs to avoid violating federal eligibility rules prohibiting discrimination against service members, to properly offer continuation coverage and reinstatement during and following periods of service by employees and family members, and to avoid improper denial of coverage or coordination of benefit rules with military and veteran health benefits.

Given the potential liabilities that can result from noncompliance with these and other federal employment rules and requirements protecting active military and veteran service men and women, U.S. employer generally should reconfirm and carefully monitor and document their compliance with these laws to minimize their liability exposure. Where employers use subcontractors or otherwise outsource work, these businesses also should consider require their subcontractors and other service providers to contract to comply with these requirements, to supply data and other documentation that the employer might need to complete reports or otherwise defend its compliance, to cooperate in audits and other investigations, and to participate and cooperate with employer initiated compliance audits as well as government audits and investigations.

Need more information about veterans’ employment or other Human Resources, employee benefits, compensation or other performance and compliance management, check out the extensive training and other resources available on the author’s website or contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer has advised, trained, coached and defended businesses, employee benefit plans and others, published, and problem solved on opportunities and challenges relating to employment, benefits consumer, health care, disability and other rights and needs of active duty and veteran service people and their families.

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.

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 health care, financial, tax, HR and technology, privacy, data security and breach; health care, 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, 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:

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. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author 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.

Comments Off on Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement | Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Construction, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, Government Contractors, HR, Human Resources, Leave, Military Leave, OFCCP, Uncategorized, USERRA, veterans, VEVRAA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Worker | Tagged: Affirmative Action, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Government Contractors, Health Insurance, Health Plans, veterans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts

March 26, 2019

Employers, health plans and others concerned about managing the high medical, disability and other costs of Type 2 Diabetes should use today’s annual Diabetes Awareness Day observances and resources to beef up their efforts and tools.

With 1 in 3 adult Americans at risk for Type 2 diabetes, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and other public and private organizations partnering in The National Diabetes Prevention Program are urging all Americans, their health plans, state and local agencies and communities to protect themselves and join their fight to prevent or delay Type 2 diabetes.

Celebrated every year on the fourth Tuesday in March, Diabetes Alert Day promotes awareness of the prevalence and risks of undiagnosed or unmanaged Type 2 Diabetes to Americans, American taxpayers, health benefit programs and their communities.

More than 30 million people in the United States have diabetes and an additional 84 million adults—over a third—have prediabetes, and 90% of them don’t know they have it.
Diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in the United States (and may be underreported).
Type 2 diabetes accounts for about 90% to 95% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes; type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5%.
In the last 20 years, the number of adults diagnosed with diabetes has more than tripled as the American population has aged and become more overweight or obese
Undiagnosed or unmanaged Type 2 diabetes threatens serious and disabling medical risks for afflicted individuals that also are financially costly for patients and their families, their health plans, taxpayers and communities.

Type 2 diabetes usually starts during adulthood; however, children, teens, and young adults increasingly also are developing it. Since Type 2 diabetes symptoms often develop over several years and can go on for a long time without being noticed it’s important individuals know the factors for Type 2 Diabetes and that people with these symptoms visit their doctor promptly.

Fortunately, Type 2 Diabetes and its costs often can be prevented or minimized through appropriate diagnosis and treatment. That’s why the CDC and its partners are urging all Americans, the employers, health plans, health care providers and communities to join the fight against Type 2 Diabetes.

To start with, the CDC and its partners ask every American to learn their risk for diabetes by taking the online Type 2 Diabetes Risk and promote use of CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs to individuals suffering or at risk for Type 2 diabetes.

The CDC and its partners also are asking American families, health care providers, employers and their health benefit programs, federal, local and state governments and communities to help identify and get people at risk or suffering from Type 2 diabetes involved in making appropriate lifestyle changes and other activities to help manage their Type 2 Diabetes and offers a multitude of free tools and resources to help promote Type 2 Diabetes Awareness and assist in its prevention and treatment.

Employers and their health plans and insurers should consider participating in Diabetes Alert Day and using some of the resources provided by CDC and other partners to beef up their Type 2 and other Diabetes prevention, screening and management efforts. Appropriate use of these resources could help mitigate exposure to the high medical, disability, productivity and other costs that employers and their health plans generally incur when employees or their family members suffer from undiagnosed or unmanaged diabetes. When utilizing these resources, however, employers and their health plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators are reminded to use care to implement and administer these wellness and other programs in a manner that complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, Internal Revenue Code and other federal and state requirements concerning the design and administration of wellness and disease management programs including recent updates in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations and enforcement positions under the ADA.

Learn more about Type 2 Diabetes cost modeling, screening, prevention and other participant education resources in our companion article in the Project Cope: Coalition for Patient Empowerment Newsletter. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

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, FMLA and other leave, 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her 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.

Comments Off on Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts | Disability, Disability, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, family leave, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Leave, Management, medical leave, Military Leave, preventive care, Wellness | Tagged: department of labor, Employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Military Leave, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ADEA Age Discrimination Ban Applies To All State & Local Government Employers

November 6, 2018

State and local political subdivisions employing fewer than 20 employees should reconfirm the defensibility of their employment policies and practices under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various other laws in light of the unanimous[1] ruling issued this morning by the United State Supreme Court holding that the ADEA applies to all state and local political subdivisions regardless of size.

In its ruling in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, – U.S. -, 2018 WL 5794639 (November 6, 2018) released this morning, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ADEA applies to all state and local subdivisions regardless of the number of employees the political subdivision employs.

The Supreme Court’s ruling arose from an ADEA lawsuit brought by John Guido and Dennis Rankin against a small Arizona fire department, the Mount Lemmon Fire District (District) challenging their layoff by the District. Faced with a budget shortfall, the District laid off Guido and Rankin, who at the time were the District’s two oldest full-time firefighters. Guido and Rankin sued the Fire District, alleging that their termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. The Fire District sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the District was too small to qualify as an “employer” within the ADEA’s compass.

In response to Guido and Rankin’s lawsuit, the District asserted that was not covered by the ADEA because its employment of fewer than 20 employees rendered it “too small” to qualify as an “employer” as defined by 29 U. S. C. §630(b). In its ruling against the Fire District this morning, the Supreme Court rejected this numerosity defense, holding instead that the ADEA applies to all political subdivisions regardless of the size of their workforce.

In the unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court pointed out that the ADEA definition of “employer” distinguishes between private sector employers and State and local political subdivisions. The Supreme Court noted that before 1974, State and local political subdivisions were exempt from the ADEA. In 1974, however, Congress added a special definition of “employer” for States and political subdivisions to the ADEA and FLSA when it amended the ADEA and FLSA to apply to all State and local government employers regardless of their size. Thus, since 1974, the ADEA and FLSA definitions of “employer” have read as follows:

“The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” 29 U. S. C. §630(b); 29 U. S. C. §203(d), (x).

In construing this definition, the Supreme Court weighed whether the phrase “also means” added new categories to the definition of “employer” or merely clarified that States and their political subdivisions are a type of “person” included in §630(b)’s first sentence. While acknowledging that various Courts of Appeals previously have reached differing conclusions concerning the appropriate interpretation, the Supreme Court ruled that the phase “also means” added a new category to the definition of “employer” for purposes of the ADEA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the District’s claim that the ADEA definition of “employer” includes the requirement of employment of at least 20 employees applicable to the ADEA’s private sector definition of “employer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ADEA applies to all State and local political subdivisions.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, any State or local subdivision that has operated in reliance upon the now discredited interpretations of the ADEA or FLSA definitions of “employer” as applicable only to State or local governmental entities employing at least 20 employees immediately should take all necessary corrective action to bring their policies into compliance with the ADEA and FLSA. These governmental entities also should seek the advice of qualified legal counsel about the advisability of taking any retrospective action to self-correct any potential past deficiencies in compliance, if any, for which the entity might bear potential liability to the extent that the applicable state of limitations has not run on those claims.

[1] Justice Kavanaugh did not join in the opinion as he took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

About the Author

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.

©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 ADEA Age Discrimination Ban Applies To All State & Local Government Employers | adea, Age Discrimination, board of directors, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Discrimination, EBSA, Education, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Exempt, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Government Accountability, government employer, government plan, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, Managment, officers, Overtime, Restructuring, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Risk Management, Schools, Supreme Court, Uncategorized | Tagged: #agediscrimination, #mountlemmon #adea, #schooldistrict #publichospital #firedepartment #publicschool #university #publichealth, Mount Lemmon | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Free Poster for Upcoming October National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2018 Available

August 10, 2018

The official poster for the upcoming National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2018 in October is now available in both English and Spanish. You can download the free poster from the Office of Disability Employment (ODEP) website here or order it in hard copy here.

Observed each October, NDEAM celebrates the contributions of workers with disabilities and educates about the value of a workforce inclusive of their skills and talents.

The 2018 National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) theme is “America’s Workforce: Empowering All.”

In keeping with this theme, the 2018 poster features an office scene of coworkers with and without disabilities, and highlights the theme of “America’s Workforce: Empowering All.”

Comments Off on Free Poster for Upcoming October National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2018 Available | Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Time To Tighten Business Travel Policies

January 30, 2018

Businesses with employees that travel regularly or for the occasional training or other isolated business trip should review and update their travel related policies, practices, and procedures for evolving laws, risks and management needs.

To start with, 2017 tax reforms impact the tax treatment of various employee relocation and travel related expense. Businesses should review these changes and make appropriate updates now to avoid headaches for the business and its employees later.

While many employers mostly focus upon travel expense management, reporting and reimbursement, smart employers also understand there’s much more to consider.

First and foremost, since employees often forget that the purpose of business travel is carrying out the business of the company and not a boondoggle, business travel policies and communications should make clear to employees that their trip is about work. Policies should make clear to employees their tesponsibility for attending meetings and performing other business-related responsibilities as well as for conducting themselves at all times consistent with company policy and to promote a positive impression of the employer and the company.

Naturally all travel policies also should require compliance with all applicable laws and customs. For international travel, this includes compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Patriot Act, U.S. and foreign immigration and customs, and other relevant laws, rules and customs. However, domestic travelers also should be reminded if their duty to comply with local laws as well.

Amid the current “Me Too” frenzy, however, companies also should consider addressing other potentially risky behavior that tends to arise when employees travel on business. Unfortunately history proves that many employees actually do need to be told and reminded to abstain from inappropriate alcohol, sexual harassment or other behavior that could create liability or embarrassment for the company when traveling for business or engaging in other activities. Because business travel tends to blur distinctions between business and personal time, most businesses will want to establish and communicate high expectations concerning on and off-duty conduct when traveling on business to head off potential problems. Updated direction about hosting or participating in entertainment and other social activities with co-workers, customers, vendors, prospects and others also often are warranted.

Beyond communicating expectations of employees while on business travel, businesses also should confirm their company’s compensation, expense reimbursement, timekeeping and reporting, hours of work, and other policies comply with current laws and capture and retain appropriate documentation.

Businesses must recognize, for instance, that training and other work related travel typically is considered hours of work for wage an hour, safety and various other purposes. Employers should confirm their policies and practices properly capture and count all required hours of compensable work and pay hourly workers for time on the road properly in accordance with Labor Department requirements. Many employers unfortunately get nailed for overtime violations because of assumptions or misunderstandings of rules. For instance, many employers improperly fail to count air travel and certain other travel time as compensable when required to do so under Labor Department Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) rules. Likewise, improperly structured expense reimbursement policies or practices can bump up overtime pay liability by requiring the employer to include otherwise excludable expense reimbursements payments in the hourly rate of pay when calculating regular and overtime pay. Employers must ensure they understand these rules and take appropriate steps to capture, track, report and pay for time and expenses upfront to defend an audit or other challenge effectively and efficiently.

Reviewing and tightening workforce travel related policies, practices and procedures to meet current laws, business and social expectations and management needs can boost the bang businesses realize for their business travel buck while mitigating a host of legal and business risks.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation; Former Chair of the RPTE Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee, a current Co-Chair of the Committee, and the former Chair of its Welfare Benefit and its Defined Compensation Plan Committees and former RPTE Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council (JCEB) Representative, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate, author and lecturer repeatedly recognized for her 30 plus years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on health, pension and other employee benefit, insurance, labor and employment, and health care fiduciary responsibility, payment, investment, contracting and other design, administration and compliance concerns as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas,” a “Legal Leader,” a “Top Woman Lawyer” and with other awards by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, in International Who’s Who of Professionals and with numerous other awards and distinctions.

Highly valued for her ability to meld her extensive legal and industry knowledge and experience with her talents as an insightful innovator and pragmatic problem solver, Ms. Stamer advises, represents and defends employer, union, multi-employer, association and other employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers and managed care organizations, fiduciaries, plan administrators, technology and other service providers, government and community leaders and others about health and other employee benefit and insurance program and policy design and innovation, funding, documentation, administration, communication, data security and use, contracting, plan, public and regulatory reforms and enforcement, and other risk management, compliance and operations matters. Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new policies, programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations; crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Education and other federal agencies, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, and various other foreign and domestic governmental bodies and agencies. She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness. Alongside her extensive legal and operational experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her work as a public and regulatory policy advocate and community leader with a gift for finding pragmatic solutions and helping to forge the common ground necessary to build consensus. Best known for her domestic public policy and community leadership on health care and insurance reform, Ms. Stamer’s lifelong public policy and community service involvement includes service as a lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, as well as extensive legislative and regulatory reform, advocacy and input workforce, worker classification, employee benefit, public health and healthcare, social security and other disability and aging in place, education, migration reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life. In addition to her public and regulatory policy involvement, Ms. Stamer also contributes her service and leadership to a professional and civic organizations and efforts including her involvement as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; Vice Chair, Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair and Membership Committee member of the ABA RPTE Section; former RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group Chair, former Chair and Co-Chair of its Welfare Plans Committee, and Defined Contribution Plans Committee; former RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council; former RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel; 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, former Board Member, Continuing Education Chair and Treasurer of the Southwest Benefits Association; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; 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; past Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member, and in leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management 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, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, 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, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other public policy advocacy and other professional and civic organizations and involvements. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

Before founding her current law firm, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer practiced law as a partner with several prominent national and international law firms for more than 10 years before founding Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. to practice her unique brand of “Solutions law™” and to devote more time to the pragmatic policy and system reform, community education and innovation, and other health system improvement efforts of her PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment initiative.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on Time To Tighten Business Travel Policies | Absenteeism, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Brokers, business travel, Civil Rights, compensation, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, Education, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, FICA, FLSA, Fringe Benefit, Government Contractors, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, Nonresident aliens, occupational safety, OSHA, Overtime, Pay, Payroll Tax, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, Telecommuting, Uncategorized, visas, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

January 24, 2018

Department of Labor (DOL) and other agencies’ spending reports posted at USASpending.gov to comply withthe Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) are intended to help taxpayers, government leaders and others monitor and evaluate agency spending. However a new report from the DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG) found data reporting and other issues have compromised the reliability of the data reported in DOL reports posed on USASpending.gov.

The Data Act requires federal agencies to report spending data in accordance with new government-wide data standards developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Treasury (Treasury). The data reports are posted on so taxpayers and policy makers understand how the Department is spending its funds. The Act requires federal agencies to report spending data in accordance with new government-wide data standards developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Treasury (Treasury). The Act also requires the Inspectors General of each federal agency to conduct a review of the agency’s DATA Act compliance every two years and report on the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and quality of the agency’s data.

The new report reports OIG’s findings from a performance audit OIG performed to assess: (1) the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and quality of data submitted by the Department; and (2) the Department’s implementation and use of the Government-wide data standards established by OMB and Treasury for the Fiscal Year 2017 second quarter. While OIG found DOL effectively implemented and used the Government-wide data standards established by OMB and Treasury to prepare the reports and timely submitted the DATA Act required reports, it found numerous issues with the overall quality of the spending data it submitted for publication on USAspending.gov. Among other things, OIG reports that DOL:

Did not report all the required data elements for 19 percent of the transactions sampled. OIG found 77% of these errors occurred because the Department did not include Unique Record Identifiers for transactions when it was required to. This could cause issues when linking financial data with grant data on USAspending.gov.
74% of the transactions sampled contained an error in one or more data elements. OIG reports many of these errors resulted from issues in the Treasury’s DATA Act broker data extraction process.
Excluding those errors, 52% of the transactions sampled contained inaccurate information.
In addition to errors uncovered from OIG’s sampling audit, DOL also reported inaccurate program activity and object class codes for 5 and 7 percent of transactions, respectively, in its File B submission.

OIG attributes these errors in accuracy and completeness occurred because of data entry mistakes, data extraction issues, and weak data validation processes and concluded that these control deficiencies will have a negative impact on the quality of the data DOL reports until corrected.

Based on these findings, OIG has made eight recommendations to DOL’s Principal Deputy Chief Financial Officer to improve the quality of the data the DOL reports to USAspending.gov in the future and to strengthen internal controls over its data management processes.

While OIG reports DOL has concurred with these recommendations and has stated it has implemented additional controls, resulting in fewer errors with each submission, taxpayers and others using past reports need to consider the reported deficiencies in their evaluation and use of the data as well as assess the validity of future reported data for possible issues for future assessments. Even considering these issues, however, taxpayers and government leaders should consider consulting the data when investigating or evaluating DOL or other program activities or expenditures for policy, enforcement priority or other purposes.

About The Author

Before founding her current law firm, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer practiced law as a partner with several prominent national and international law firms for more than 10 years before founding Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. to practice her unique brand of “Solutions law™” and to devote more time to the pragmatic policy and system reform, community education and innovation, and other health system improvement efforts of her PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment initiative.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement | 401(k), Civil Rights, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, EBSA, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, ERISA, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, FLSA, Government Accountability, Government Contractors, h-2A Visa, Health Benefits, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, LEP, LGBT, Management, medical leave, Mental Health, MEWA, Military Leave, mine safety, MSHA, NLRA, Obamacare, occupational safety, officers, OSHA, Overtime, Patient Empowerment, Pay, pension plan, Plan Admistrator, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Sexual Harassment, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, VEVRAA, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

January 7, 2018

Arizona legislators are considering adopting legislation banning and rendering unenforceable agreements by employers or others to keep confidential or otherwise restrict the disclosure of allegations or other information about sexual harassment or sexual assault. If enacted as proposed, the proposed legislation could significantly impact employers, sexual harassment and sexual assault victims and witnesses, persons accused of sexual assault or harassment and others’ ability to negotiate, enforce or comply with provisions in new or preexisting employment policies, and settlement, severance and other agreements requiring confidentiality of or restricting disclosure of information about findings or allegations of sexual harassment or assault and related factual information.

As currently proposed, Arizona House Bill 2020 (HB 2020) would amend Section 1. Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, to include add a new section 12-720 that would read as follows

12-720. Confidentiality agreements; disclosure of information relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment; applicability

A. A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT RESTRICTS THE DISCLOSURE OF FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, INCLUDING FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO AN ALLEGATION OF OR ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, IS AGAINST THIS STATE’S PUBLIC SAFETY AND POLICY AND IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.

B. A PERSON MAY NOT ENTER INTO A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT RESTRICTS THE DISCLOSURE OF FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO AN ALLEGATION OF OR ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DISCLOSURE OF A MINOR CRIME VICTIM’S MEDICAL OR PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OR TO OTHER INFORMATION THAT IS SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY LAW.

Based on this currently proposed language, enactment of HB 2020’s sexual harassment and assault confidentiality restrictions almost certainly will dramatically impact both the financial, reputation and legal liability exposures of individuals accused of sexual harassment or assault and their employers or others potentially responsible for the investigation, management or liability for the alleged harasser’s behavior, behavior, as well as the privacy, retaliation and other concerns of sexual harassment or assault victims and witnesses. Certainly, HB 2020 would preclude or limit the ability of executives or other individuals accused of sexual harassment or assault from hiding their isolated or recurrent actual or alleged misconduct behind confidentiality or nondisclosure provisions in settlement or other contracts, handbooks, investigation, compliance or other policies. Likewise, HB 2020’s prohibitions against agreements requiring the maintenance of confidentiality of information about alleged or actual sexual harassment or assaults also can be expected to make it more difficult for employers to defend or mitigate their exposure to liability for alleged sexual harassment or assaults by making it much easier for alleged victims, their attorneys and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other government agencies to investigate and obtain evidence about the conduct of the accused and the actions of his or her employer to other events or charges of sexual harassment or assault. Among other things, more free availability of this information is likely to make it easier for sexual harassment or assault victims, their plaintiff’s lawyers and the EEOC or other agencies and advocates to uncover, pursue enforcement and recover damages from employers through individual, class action or serial sexual harassment investigations and lawsuits as well as to rebut efforts of employers and those accused to mitigate damages and other liability.

While many might celebrate these expected effects of HB 2020 in helping to hold harassers and their employers more accountable for misconduct and to safeguard others from becoming future victims, HB 2020 also carries the risk of a number of potentially undesirable side effects for sexual harassment and assault victims and witnesses, employer and other investigators and those wrongfully accused. Because victims and witnesses to sexual harassment often fear embarrassment, retaliation or other adverse consequences from their report or involvement in a charge or investigation, sexual harassment and other policies and the employers and others responsible for administering and enforcing sexual harassment policies typically offer assurances of confidentiality and other nondisclosure to encourage and reassure victims and witnesses to report concerning behavior and to help prevent retaliation against victims and witnesses reporting or cooperating in sexual harassment and assault investigations. While HB 2020 includes a provision that appears intended to preserve the confidentiality of the identity and medical information of victims, the technical concealment of names and medical information as a practical matter generally provides an inadequate shield for victims or witnesses when other information otherwise remains discoverable. Consequently, confidentiality restrictions like those proposed in HB 2020 could backfire against these victims and witnesses and employers legitimately working to protect them by enhancing victim and witness reluctance to report or cooperate in sexual harassment investigations as well as inflict substantial and irreversible injury upon the personal and professional reputations of individuals wrongfully accused. The confidentiality prohibitions of HB 2020 are likely to undermine the ability of employers, victims and witnesses to use confidentiality requirements legitimately to prevent unjustified retaliation, loss of privacy and other adverse consequences to victims, witnesses and those wrongfully accused. Likewise, restrictions on confidentiality also can be expected to undermine the ability of victims to secure compensation from guilty parties and their employers without litigation as accused parties and their employer as the inability to enforce confidentiality will undermine the settlement value of questionable charges by enhancing the potential need to dispute and defend such charges to avoid becoming targeted by other accusations concurrently or in the future.

Obviously, these and other potential implications of HB 2020 make it highly advisable that businesses, management, individuals, insurers and others potentially subject to HB 2020 will want to carefully assess the implications of HB 2020 and provide input to the Arizona legislature. Given the wave of recent publicity triggered over the past year from widespread reporting of sexual harassment and related charges and resulting resignations and lawsuits and settlements involving sexual harassment charges levied against high profile entertainers, business leaders and others, employers, management and business leaders, victims, witnesses, insurers and other operating outside the jurisdiction of Arizona law can anticipate that they also may face similar legislative, regulatory or other challenges to confidentiality and nondisclosure policies and agreements concerning sexual harassment and assault allegations, investigations and settlements. Because of these and other concerns, employers, victims, witnesses, investigators, insurers and others with responsibility for or involvement with sexual harassment and assault concerns across the nation should both carefully monitor these developments as well as the reliability and effectiveness of their past and existing sexual harassment, investigations, anti-retaliation, confidentiality and other related policies, confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions in settlement agreements, and other potentially impacted agreements, policies and practices. Employers and other individuals or organizations in the scope of potential liability for sexual harassment or assault charges also may wish to consider strengthening existing anti-harassment policies, investigation practices, insurance coverage and other prevention and risk management arrangements to mitigate their sexual harassment risks.

About The Author

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 including extensive involvement for more than providing training for management and others and helping management, liability insurers and others to develop, administer, enforce, defend and mitigate sexual harassment and other related employment risks.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on sexual harassment and other 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, who has received high praise for workshops and training programs she conducts on “What To Do When Your Employee’s Personal Life Becomes Your Business,” “Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘N Role in the Workplace,” and other sexual harassment, investigations, privacy and related programs for SHRM, 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.™

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

©2018 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 Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks | directors, EEOC, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, ERISA, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Human Resources, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Sexual Harassment, 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

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.™

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

DOL Announces $40M in Hurricane Unemployment Help

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

©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

Address Workplace Harassment During October Stop Bullying Month

October 21, 2017

This month’s annual October Stop Bullying Month observances are a great time for employers to deter sexual, racial, religious, national Origin, disability discrimination and harassment, retaliation and other illegal or otherwise counterproductive bullying in their workplaces.

Aside from obvious legal exposures that often attend from many versions of workplaces bullying, unfair or heavy handed tactics of workplace bullies often pervasively disrupt workplace productivity and operations by undermining performance, feedback, initiative, employee retention and a host of other ways.

Seize the opportunity to boost your organization’s legal and operational exposures non discrimination, anti-harassment, and other workplace bullying policies by leveraging the visibility and resources of this month’s anti-bullying activities.

Checkout StopBullying.gov for more information and free resources.

About The Author

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.™

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

▪ RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise”

▪ Health Clinic At Houston Convention Center, Other HHS Help For Hurricane Harvey Victims

▪ IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties

▪ DB Plan Sponsors Check Out New Bifurcated Distribution Model Amendmentsy

▪ U.S. News Names 2017-2018 “Best” Hospitals; Patient Usefulness Starts With Metholodogy Understanding

▪ Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future

▪ Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

▪ Employers, Health Plans Should Brace For Tightened Federal Mental Health Coverage Mandate Disclosure And Enforcement

▪ Withholding Calculator Tool Helps Workers Figure Withholding

▪ Better Preparing U.S. Workers To Fill Your Jobs

▪ SCOTUS Ruling Bars Many State Arbitration Agreement Restrictions

▪ $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others

Comments Off on Address Workplace Harassment During October Stop Bullying Month | Absenteeism, ADA, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Child Safety, Civil Rights, compliance, conflict of interest, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, EEOC, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, English As A Second Language, Gaming, HR, Human Resources, Immigration, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leadership, LEP, LGBT, Management, Managment, Patient Empowerment, Privacy, Retaliation, Risk Management, Schools, Security, Sexual Harassment, Union, USERRA, veterans, VEVRAA, VEVRRA, Whistleblower, Worker, Workforce | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Labor Department, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Periodically Reevaluate Employee Business Expense Reimbursement Practices

April 5, 2017

Employers looking for cost-effective opportunities to sweeten the perceived value their compensation and fringe benefit packages periodically should re-examine their policies for reimbursement of employees for ordinary and necessary business expenses an employee incurs in connection with the performance of his duties, such as:

Required work clothes or uniforms not appropriate for everyday use.
Supplies and tools for use on the job.
Business use of a car.
Business meals and entertainment.
Business travel away from home.
Business use of a home.
Work-related education.

Businesses generally consider a wide range of factors when deciding what expenses to reimburse to employees. In arriving at these decisions, however, many businesses overlook the opportunity to stretch the overall compensation dollars by reimbursing employees for business expenses in lieu of paying cash compensation to the employee but requiring the employee to use after tax dollars to pay business expenses not reimbursed by the employer.

While many employers believe “cash is king” when paying employees, paying employees more cash in lieu of reimbursing employees for business often increases the employment tax liability of the employer while also unwittingly diminishing the value of the cash compensation paid to the employee because of federal tax rules governing individual deductions a business expenses.

While the Internal Revenue Code and associated Internal Revenue Service regulations impose special rules for certain categories of employment, federal tax law generally allows businesses both:

To deduct from the gross income of the business for purposes of determining its adjusted gross income those amounts the business pays as wages as well as amounts paid to reimburse an employee for ordinary and necessary business expenses expended by the employee in the performance of his duties and to exclude such amounts for calculating the employment tax liabilities of both the employer and the employee; and
In many, but not all instances, to exclude all or some of the reimbursement amount from the taxable wages of the employee for income tax and/or employment tax purposes.

The income and employment tax treatment of business expenses paid by an employee generally is much less favorable when an employee seeks to deduct or exclude xpenditures made for ordinary and necessary business expenses from taxable income.

While federal income tax rules generally allow businesses to deduct ordinary and business expenses directly from gross income to arrive at their taxable adjusted gross income, federal tax rules are more restrictive concerning the deduction of business expenses by employees for income tax purposes and provides no easy mechanism to claim credit for such amounts for employment tax purposes.

In general, the Internal Revenue Code generally only allows employees who otherwise have sufficient deductible expenses to itemize deductions to claim any business expenses as a deduction when calculating their federal income taxes. Depending on the income of the workforce and particularly in the case of lower income workers, the itemization requirement effectively bars a large percentage of employees from any possibility of deducting business expenses incurred in the performance of their work.

Beyond the requirement to itemize, the Internal Revenue Code also imposes a second hurdle that further restricts the deductibility of business expenses when claimed by an employee versus a business. Specifically, the Internal Revenue Code generally only allows an employee to deduct business expenses paid by the employee to the extent those expenses exceed 2% of the employee’ adjusted gross income. This means that even those employees who qualify to file itemize deductions cannot deduct the initial 2% of the ordinary and necessary business expenses the employee pays and connection of the performance of his job even though the Internal Revenue Code would allow the employer to deduct the full amount of amounts paid to reimburse the employee for those same expenses.

Since most employees understand that the purchasing power of any cash compensation they receive from the employer is reduced by the amount of any expenses that they pay but are not reimbursed for, considering reimbursing employees for expenses in lieu of paying the employee cash, then requiring the employee to pay those expenses out of taxable income.

Of course, when considering whether to pay or reimburse employee expenses, employers also should evaluate and verify that their planned treatment of an expenditure and its reimbursement otherwise complies with any union or other contracts, as well as any applicable federal and state occupational safety, wage and hour and other laws.

Regardless of whether the employer or the employee plans to claim a business expense for tax purposes, an employer should encourage its employees to keep, and if reimbursing the employee, submit good records for proof of income and expenses. Employers reimbursing business expenses may wish to educate employees about both the tax and financial value of these reimbursement benefits as a part of the overall compensation package provided to employees. Even where an employer does not reimburse its employees all or part of an otherwise deductible business expense, however, it also may want to share Internal Revenue Service resources like “IRS Publication 529, Miscellaneous Deductions,” and “Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift and Car Expenses” with employees to help educate employees about these tax rules and their opportunities and responsibilities.

About The Author

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 in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including 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 advisor 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; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current 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 highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment, employee benefits, compensation, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on Periodically Reevaluate Employee Business Expense Reimbursement Practices | employee, Employee Benefits, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Tax, HR, Human Resources, Income Tax, IRC, Tax, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Tagged: benefits, Compensation, Employee, Employer, Employment Tax, expense reimbursement, Fringe Benefits, Income Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Aggressively Targeting Restaurants For Wage & Hour & Child Labor Law Violations

November 3, 2016

Restaurant employers beware! Restaurants are the target of a highly successful, U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) restaurant enforcement and compliance initiative that WHD already has used to nail a multitude of restaurants across the country for “widespread violations” of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage, overtime, child labor and other wage and hour laws (WH Law).

Having reportedly found WH Law violations in “nearly every one” of the WH Law investigations conducted against restaurant employers during 2016 and recovered millions of dollars of back pay and penalties from restaurants caught through investigations conducted under its WHD Restaurant Enforcement Initiative, WHD Administrator Dr. David Weil recently confirmed WHD plans to expand the restaurant employers targeted for investigation and other efforts to punish and correct WH Law violations under the Restaurant Enforcement Initiative through 2017 in an October 5, 2016 WHD News Release: Significant Violations In The Austin Restaurant Industry Raise Concerns For Us Labor Department Officials (News Release).

The News Release quotes Administrator Weil as stating:

The current level of noncompliance found in these investigations is not acceptable …WHD will continue to use every tool we have available to combat this issue. This includes vigorous enforcement as well as outreach to employer associations and worker advocates to ensure that Austin restaurant workers receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Given the substantial back pay, interest, civil or in the case of willful violations, criminal penalties, costs of defense and prosecution and other sanctions that restaurant employers, their owners and management can face if their restaurant is caught violating FLSA or other WH Laws, restaurants and their leaders should arrange for a comprehensive review within the scope of attorney-client privilege of the adequacy and defensibility of their existing policies, practices and documentation for classifying, assigning duties, tracking regular and overtime hours, paying workers and other WH Law compliance responsibilities and opportunities to mitigate risks and liabilities from WH Law claims and investigations.

Many Restaurants Already Nailed Through Restaurant Enforcement Initiative

Even before the planned 2017 expansion of its Restaurant Enforcement Initiative, WHD’s enforcement record shows WHD’s efforts to find and punish restaurants that violate WH Laws are highly successful. Restaurant employers overwhelmingly are the employers targeted by WHD in the vast majority of the WH Law settlements and prosecutions announced in WHD News Releases published over the past two years, including aggregate back pay and penalty awards of more than $11.4 million recovered through the following 31 actions announced by WHD between January 1, 2016 and October 31, 2016:

US Labor Department Investigation Finds Thundercloud Subs Owes Nearly $128K In Back Wages, Damages To Austin Restaurant Workers (October 20, 2016);
US Labor Department Announces Hotline To Offer Updates To Capitol Hill Cafeteria Workers Owed Back Wage Payments (October 20, 2016);
US Labor Department Recovers More Than $570K In Back Wages, Damages For 55 Workers At Johnny Rockets Restaurants In Washington Metro Area (October 11, 2016);
Portland, Texas, Restaurant Settles Worker Retaliation Allegation After US Labor Department Finds Nine Employees Owed $25K In Back Wages (October 06, 2016);
Providence Restaurant, Owner To Pay $567K In Back Wages, Damages To 104 Employees Denied Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay (September 23, 2016);
US Labor Department Investigation Finds Capitol Hill Cafeteria Workers Illegally Denied More Than $1M In Wages By Federal Food Service Contractors (July 26, 2016);
El Azteca Restaurant Group To Pay $700K In Back Wages, Damages To 129 Workers At Four Wisconsin Eateries (July 26, 2016);
Historic Oklahoma City Restaurant Pays Workers $52K In Back Wages, Damages After Labor Department Investigation (June 22, 2016);
Kissimmee, Florida, Restaurant To Pay Nearly $41KIn Back Wages To 15 Employees After US Department Of Labor Investigation (June 15, 2016);
Court Orders Buffet Restaurant, Owners To Pay $128K In Back Wages, Penalties To Resolve Allegations Of Federal Minimum Wage, Overtime Violations (June 09, 2016);
Grand Rapids Restaurant, Owners Agree With Court Order To Comply With Federal Record-Keeping Rules After Department’s Wage And Hour Investigation (May 31, 2016);
Court Judgment Orders Four Phoenix-Area Federico’s Mexican Food Restaurants To Pay Workers $202KIn Overtime Back Wages, Damages (May 24, 2016);
US Labor Department Investigation Finds Child Labor, Minimum Wage And Other Violations At Street’s Seafood Restaurant (May 17, 2016);
US Labor Department Initiative Finds 14 Lawrence Restaurants Owe More Than $112K In Back Wages To 130 Workers (May 17, 2016);
US Labor Department Obtains Order To Stop Arlington Restaurant Owners From Intimidating Workers Who Cooperate With Federal Investigators (May 16, 2016);
Charleston Restaurants’ Minimum Wage, Overtime Violations Result In Nearly $217K In Back Wages For 26 Employees (May 9, 2016);
Las Investigaciones Dieron Como Resultado Casi $1.2 Millones En Salarios Retroactivos Y Daños Y Perjuicios Para Más De 100 Trabajadores En 13 Restaurantes En El Área De Charleston and Investigations Result In Nearly $1.2M In Back Wages, Damages For More Than 100 Workers At 13 Charleston Area Restaurants (April 19, 2016);
Clairmont Diner Will Pay $213K In Back Wages, Damages And Penalties After Federal Wage And Hour Investigation (March 30, 2016);
Tampico Restaurants Agree To Pay $190K In Back Wages To 67 Workers (March 26, 2016);
S. Labor Department Lawsuit Seeks Back Wages And Damages For Austintown, Ohio Restaurant Workers (March 16, 2016);
Popular Cajun Food Enterprise Will Pay More Than $138K In Back Wages, Penalties Following U.S. Labor Department Investigation (March 07, 2016);
US Labor Department Initiative Finds Ames Restaurants Owe Nearly $100K In Back Wages To More Than 150 Workers (March 02, 2016);
S. Labor Department Sues To Recover Unpaid Minimum Wage, Overtime Plus Additional Damages For Akron Restaurant Workers (February 25, 2016);
Paying To Work? Sophia’s House Of Pancakes Resolves Allegations Servers Made To Pay $2 Per Hour To Work At Restaurants (February 16, 2016)($245K);
Two Hawaii Restaurants Found In Violation Of Overtime Pay Requirements (February 10, 2016)($81,294);
Labor Department Launches West Coast Sweep To Investigate Pay Practices At Fast Food Establishments To Ensure Fairness, Compliance (February 4, 2016);
Sushi And Ramen Restaurants Pay $621K In Back Wages, Damages And Penalties After US Labor Department Investigation (January 25, 2016)
Federal Judge Overturns Jury Verdict, Orders El Tequila Restaurants And Owner Carlos Aguirre To Pay $2.1 Million In Back Wages And Damages To Workers (January 14, 2016);
Taqueria La Herradura En Pharr, Texas, Paga Más De $33 Mil En Concepto De Salarios Retroactivos Y Daños Al Personal De La Cocina Después De Una Investigación Del Departamento De Trabajo De Ee.Uu.(January 12, 2016);
Investigations At 10 North Carolina Restaurants Find More Than $510K In Back Wages Owed To 125 Workers (January 12, 2016);
Restaurant Enforcement Initiative Finds More Than $2.27M In Back Wages, Damages Owed To More Than 3,000 Georgia Workers (January 05, 2016).

Enforcement Actions Highlight Common Restaurant WH Law Compliance Concerns

Restaurant employers, like employers in most other industries, are subject to a host of minimum wage, overtime and other requirements including the FLSA requirement that covered, nonexempt employees earn at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all regular hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records and must comply with child labor, anti-retaliation and other WH Law requirements.

The News Release identified some of the common violations WHD uncovered in these investigations included employers:

Requiring employees to work exclusively for tips, with no regard to minimum-wage standards;
Making illegal deductions from workers’ wages for walkouts, breakages, credit card transaction fees and cash register shortages, which reduce wages below the required minimum wage;
Paying straight-time wages for overtime hours worked.
Calculating overtime incorrectly for servers based on their $2.13 per hour base rates before tips, instead of the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Failing to pay proper overtime for salaried non-exempt cooks or other workers;
Creating illegal tip pools involving kitchen staff;
Failing to maintain accurate and thorough records of employees’ wages and work hours.
Committing significant child labor violations, such as allowing minors to operate and clean hazardous equipment, including dough mixers and meat slicers.

Use Care To Verify Tipped Employees Paid Properly

Based on the reported violations, restaurants employing tipped employees generally will want to carefully review their policies, practices and records regarding their payment of tipped employees. Among other things, these common violations reflect a widespread misunderstanding or misapplication of special rules for calculating the minimum hourly wage that a restaurant must pay an employee that qualifies as a tipped employee. While special FLSA rules for tipped employees may permit a restaurant to claim tips (not in excess of $5.12 per hour) actually received and retained by a “tipped employee,” not all workers that receive tips are necessarily covered by this special rule. For purposes of this rule, the definition of “tipped employee” only applies to an employee who customarily and regularly receives more than $30 per month in tips.

Also, contrary to popular perception, the FLSA as construed by the WHD does not set the minimum wage for tipped employees at $2.13 per hour. On the contrary, the FLSA requirement that non-exempt workers be paid at least the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for each regular hour worked also applies to tipped employees. When applicable, the special rule for tipped employees merely only allows an employer to claim the amount of the tips that the restaurant can prove the tipped employee actually received and retained (not in excess of $5.13 per hour) as a credit against the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour the FLSA otherwise would require the employer to pay the tipped employee. Only tips actually received by the employee may be counted in determining whether the employee is a tipped employee and in applying the tip credit. If a tipped employee earns less than $5.13 per hour in tips, the restaurant must be able to demonstrate that the combined total of the tips retained by the employee and the hourly wage otherwise paid to the tipped employee by the restaurant equaled at least the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Furthermore, restaurant or other employers claiming a tip credit must keep in mind that the FLSA generally provides that tips are the property of the employee. The FLSA generally prohibits an employer from using an employee’s tips for any reason other than as a credit against its minimum wage obligation to the employee (“tip credit”) or in furtherance of a valid tip pool.

Also, whether for purposes of applying the tip credit rules or other applicable requirements of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws, restaurant employers must create and retain appropriate records and other documentation regarding worker age, classification, hours worked, tips and other compensation paid and other evidence necessary to defend their actions with respect to tipped or other employees under the FLSA and other WH Law rules. Beyond accurately and reliably capturing all of the documentation required to show proper payment in accordance with the FLSA, restaurants also should use care to appropriately document leave, discipline and other related activities as necessary to show compliance with anti-retaliation, equal pay, family and medical leave, and other mandates, as applicable. Since state law also may impose additional minimum leave, break time or other requirements, restaurants also generally will want to review their policies, practices and records to verify their ability to defend their actions under those rules as well.

Child Labor Rules Require Special Care When Employing Minors

While hiring workers under the age of 18 (minors) can help a restaurant fulfill its staffing needs while providing young workers valuable first time or other work experience, restaurants that hire minors must understand and properly comply with any restrictions on the duties, work hours or other requirements for employment of the minor imposed by federal or state child labor laws.

As a starting point, the legal requirements for employing minors generally greater, not less, than those applicable to the employment of an adult in the same position. Employers employing workers who are less than 18 years of age (minors) should not assume that the employer can pay the minor less than minimum wage or skip complying with other legal requirements that normally apply to the employment of an adult in that position by employing the minor in an “internship” or other special capacity. The same federal and state minimum wage, overtime, safety and health and nondiscrimination rules that generally apply to the employment of an adult generally will apply to its employment of a worker who is a minor.

Beyond complying with the rules for employment of adults, restaurants employing minors also must ensure that they fully comply with all applicable requirements for the employment of minors imposed under the FLSA child labor rules and applicable state law enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities. Depending on the age of the minor, the FLSA or state child labor rules may necessitate that a restaurant tailor the duties and hours of work of an employee who is a minor to avoid the substantial liability that can result when an employer violates one of these child labor rules.

The FLSA child labor rules, for instance, impose various special requirements for the employment of youth 14 to 17 years old. See here. As a starting point, the FLSA child labor rules prohibit the any worker less than 18 years of age from operating or cleaning dough mixers, meat slicers or other hazardous equipment. Depending on the age of the minor worker, the FLSA child labor rules or state child labor laws also may impose other restrictions on the duties that the restaurant can assign or allow the minor to perform. Restaurants hiring any worker that is a minor must evaluate the duties identified as hazardous “occupations” that the FLSA child labor rules prohibit a minor of that age to perform here as an “occupation” and take the necessary steps to ensure the minor is not assigned and does not perform any of those prohibited activities in the course of his employment.

In addition to ensuring that minors don’t perform prohibited duties, restaurants employing minors also comply with all applicable restrictions on the hours that the minor is permitted to work based on the age of the minor worker. For instance, the FLSA and state child labor rules typically prohibit scheduling a minor less than 16 years of age to work during school hours and restrict the hours outside school hours the minor can work based on his age. Additional restrictions on the types of jobs and hours 14- and 15-year-olds may work also may apply.

Compliance with the FLSA child labor rules is critically important for any restaurant or other employer that employs a minor, particularly since the penalties for violation of these requirements were substantially increased in 2010, as Streets Seafood Restaurant learned earlier this year.

According to a WHD News Release, Street’s Seafood Restaurant paid $14,288 in minimum wage and overtime back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages totaling $28,577 to eight employees, and also was assessed a civil money penalty of $14,125 for FLSA child labor violations committed in the course of its employment of four minors ages 15 to 17. Specifically, investigators found Street’s Seafood Restaurant:

Required minors to operate, dismantle, clean and reassemble a meat slicer and a dough mixer.
Required a 17-year-old to operate a motor vehicle to transport food to catering events.
Required a 15-year-old to work more hours than allowed by law.
Paid some workers only $6 per hour, below the required federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Paid employees straight time for overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a week, instead of paying them time-and-one-half, as the law requires.
Failed to maintain proof of age of minors.
Failed to maintain required time and payroll records.

WHD’s announcement of the settlement resolving these child labor laws quotes Kenneth Stripling, director of the division’s Birmingham District Office as stating:

Employing young people provides valuable experience, but that experience must never come at the expense of their safety …Additionally, employers have an obligation to pay employees what they have legally earned. All workers deserve a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Unfortunately, Street’s Seafood violated not only child labor laws, but has also shorted workers’ pay. The resolution of this case sends a strong message that we will not tolerate either of those behaviors.

Restaurants Must Act To Minimize Risks

Beyond WHD’s direct enforcement actions, WHD also is seeking to encourage private enforcement of WH Law violations by conducting an aggressive outreach to employees, their union and private plaintiff representatives, states and others. Successful plaintiffs in private actions typically recover actual back pay, double damage penalties plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The availability of these often lucrative private damages makes FLSA and other WH Law claims highly popular to disgruntled or terminated workers and their lawyers. When contemplating options to settle claims WH Law claims made by a worker, employers need to keep in mind that WHD takes the position that settlements with workers do not bar the WHD from taking action unless the WHD joins in the settlement and in fact, past settlements may provide evidence of knowingness or willfulness by the employer in the event of a WHD prosecution. The substantial private recoveries coupled with these and other WHD enforcement and other compliance actions mean bad news for restaurant employers that fail to manage their FLSA and other WH Law compliance. Restaurant employers should act within the scope of attorney-client privilege to review and verify their compliance and consult with legal counsel about other options to minimize their risk and streamline and strengthen their ability to respond to and defend against audits, investigations and litigation.

Beyond verifying the appropriateness of their timekeeping and compensation activities and documentation, restaurants and staffing or management organizations working with them also should use care to mitigate exposures that often arise from missteps or overly aggressive conduct by others providing or receiving management services or staffing services. All parties to these arrangements and their management should keep in mind that both parties participating in such arrangements bear significant risk if responsibilities are not properly performed. Both service and staffing providers and restaurants using their services should insist on carefully crafted commitments from the other party to properly classify, track hours, calculate and pay workers, keep records, and otherwise comply with WH Laws and other legal requirements. Parties to these arrangements both generally also will want to insist that these contractual reassurances are backed up with meaningful audit and indemnification rights and carefully monitor the actions of service providers rendering these services.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including 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, 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; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, 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, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, 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.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on DOL Aggressively Targeting Restaurants For Wage & Hour & Child Labor Law Violations | Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Civil Monetary Penalties, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Tax, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FLSA, Government Contractors, Hiring, Hospitality, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, Management, Non-Exempt, Pay, Risk Management, Salaried, Uncategorized | Tagged: Child Labor, Employer, Exempt, FLSA, hospitality, Minimum Wage, Non-Exempt, Overtime, pay, Restaurant, wage and hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stop Bullying Month Opportunity to Strengthen Workplace Anti-Harassment Efforts

October 28, 2016

Cyber and other bullying usually is discussed as a child protection concern. However bullying of adults in the workplace also can be a big employment issue.

Applying the term “harassment” to adult bullying in the workplace allows most businesses to rapidly recognize need to prevent bullying and harassment in the workplace.

The connection between bullying and harassment is rapidly apparent from the definition of bullying. The government website stopbullying.gov defines “bullying” as unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.”

In employment or other adult environments, the word “harassment” typically is used instead of bullying to refer to aggressive unwarranted behavior against an adult. Regardless of which term is used, bullying and harassment in workplaces and other communities is disruptive for the victims, co-workers, the employment or other community and those who interact with them.

Of course by now, all businesses and their leaders are legally accountable to know that the law generally requires businesses to prevent and protect their employees against harassment by management or other employees, customers, vendors and others with whom they do business on account of sex, sexual preference, race, age, disability, National origin, religion, whistleblower status, worker’s compensation or certain other benefit claims and the exercise of a host of other protected types of conduct.

Beyond the substantial legal exposures that businesses risk from harassment in the workplace, harassment or other pulling in the work place also inevitably creates other substantial operation costs for businesses by undermining job performance of bullying victims and others, undermining morale, increasing employee turnover, creating distractions, increasing management demands, eroding trust and team work, and more.

To reduce their exposure to these legal and operational risks, most US businesses have policies, conduct training and investigations, and engage in a host of other anti-harassment activities. Even with these efforts, however, effective prevention, detection and management of bullying and other harassment behaviors in most workplaces remains a challenge. For this reason businesses and their management should constantly be on the watch for tips and tools ate them in this endeavor.

The United States government’s annual Stop Bullying Month observances each October provide an excellent opportunity for US businesses and employers to strengthen their anti-harassment risks and compliance by joining in the celebration in October and using the resources available in their anti-harassment efforts throughout the year.

Businesses also may want to take advantage of resources like stopbullying.gov that provide tips and training for identifying and addressing bullying of children and others requiring special protection.

Stopbullying.gov, for instance includes a multitude of resources for Parents, Educators, Communities, and others that can be reworked and applied and workplace and other business contexts. Beyond these generally applicable tips, The website also includes videos and other materials addressing special topics like Cyberbullying and what to do about it, Sexual Preference Harassment and many others.

Human resources and other business leaders should check out these resources and leverage them to expand their tools and strengthen their anti-harassment efforts and risk management.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on Stop Bullying Month Opportunity to Strengthen Workplace Anti-Harassment Efforts | Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Child Safety, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Security, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, E-Verify, Education, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, fiduciary duty, FLSA, GINA, Government Contractors | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Manage Retaliation Risks In Response To Updated EEOC Enforcement Guidance, Rising Retaliation Claims

August 31, 2016

U.S. employers, employment agencies, unions, their benefit plans and fiduciaries, and their management and service providers should move quickly to review and strengthen their employment and other practices to guard against a foreseeable surge in employee retaliation claims and judgements likely to follow the August 30, 2016 issuance by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of its new final EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues and concurrently published Question and Answer Guidance(Guidance).

Updating and superceding 2008 guidance previously set forth in the Retaliation Chapter of the EEOC Enforcement Manual, the Guidance details the EEOC’s current policy for investigating and enforcing the retaliation prohibitions under each of the equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws enforced by EEOC, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) as well as the ADA’s separate “interference” prohibitions, which prohibit coercion, threats, or other acts that interfere with the exercise of ADA rights. Among other things, the Guidance discusses :

What “retaliation means” and the scope of employee activity protected by the prohibitions against retaliation included in all laws enforced by the EEOC as well as the interference prohibitions of the ADA;
Legal analysis the EEOC will use to determine if evidence supports a claim of retaliation against an employer or other party;
Detailed examples of employer actions that the EEOC says may constitute prohibited retaliation; and
Remedies available for retaliation.

Understanding and properly responding to the Guidance is critically important for employers and other subject to the EEO laws because in light of the substantial and growing liability exposures retaliation claims present and the likely that the issuance of the Guidance will further fuel these risks.

Even before the EEOC published the Guidance, retaliation and interference exposures were a substantial source of concern for most employers. Employers, employment agencies and unions caught engaging in prohibited retaliation or intimidation in violation of EEO laws can incur compensatory and (except for governmental employers) punitive damage awards, back pay, front pay, reinstatement into a job or other equitable remedies, injunctive or administrative orders requiring changes in employer policies and procedures, managerial training, reporting to the EEOC and other corrective measures, as well as substantial investigation and defense costs.

These substantial liability exposures have become particularly concerning as retaliation and interference claims also have become increasingly common over the past decade. According to the EEOC, for example, EEO law retaliation charges have remained the most frequently alleged basis of charges filed with the EEOC since 2009 and in Fiscal Year 2015 accounted for 44.5 percent of all employment discrimination charges received by EEOC.
Since the EEOC’s issuance of the Retaliation Regs are likely to encourage additional retaliation or interference claims, employers, employment agencies, unions and their management, service providers and agents should quickly to evaluate the updated guidance provided in the Retaliation Reg and act to mitigate their exposure to retaliation retaliation and interference claims under these EEO laws.

Retaliation Risks Under EEO Laws

Federal EEO laws generally prohibit employers, employment agencies, or unions from punishing or taking other adverse actions against job applicants or employees for “asserting their rights” (often referred to as “protected activity”) to be free from harassment or other prohibited employment discrimination as well as certain other conduct. Such claims generally are referred to as “retaliation claims.”
Prohibited retaliation in violation of EEO laws occurs when an employer, employment agency or union takes a materially adverse action because an applicant or employee asserts rights or engages in certain other activities protected by the EEO laws.

To prevail in a retaliation claim, an applicant, employee or other individual generally must show that:

The individual engaged in prior protected activity;
The employer, employment agency or union took a materially adverse action; and
More likely than not, retaliation caused the adverse action by the employer, employment agency or union.

Persons Protected By EEO Retaliation Rules

EEO retaliation prohibitions protect both applicants and current and former employees (full-time, part-time, probationary, seasonal, and temporary) against retaliation under the EEO laws. The retaliation prohibitions bar an employer from refusing to hire or otherwise taking adverse action against any current or former applicant or employee because of his EEO complaint or other protected activity under applicable EEO laws. The EEOC interprets the retaliation rules as prohibiting an employer from giving a false negative job reference to punish a former employee for making an EEO complaint or engaging in other protected activity as well as as prohibiting an employer from refusing to hire or otherwise retaliating or discriminating against an applicant or employee based on a complaint made or other protected activity engaged against any a prior employer. The Guidance also makes clear that the retaliation prohibitions apply regardless of an applicant or employee’s citizenship or work authorization status.

Protected Activity

“Protected activity” generally means either participating in an EEO process or reasonably opposing conduct made unlawful by an EEO law.

The prohibition against an employer retaliating against an individual for “participating” in an EEO process means that an employer cannot punish an applicant or employee for filing an EEO complaint, serving as a witness, or participating in any other way in an EEO matter, even if the underlying discrimination allegation is unsuccessful or untimely. As a part of these prohibitions, the EEOC says that an employer, employment agency or union is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination. For example, depending on the facts of the particular case, it could be retaliation because of the employee’s EEO activity for an employer to:

Reprimand an employee or give a performance evaluation that is lower than it should be;
Transfer the employee to a less desirable position;
Engage in verbal or physical abuse;
Threaten to make, or actually make reports to authorities (such as reporting immigration status or contacting the police);
Increase scrutiny;
Spread false rumors, treat a family member negatively (for example, cancel a contract with the person’s spouse); or
Take action that makes the person’s work more difficult (for example, punishing an employee for an EEO complaint by purposefully changing his work schedule to conflict with family responsibilities).

The Guidance clearly states that the EEOC views participating in any capacity in a complaint process or other protected equal employment opportunity as protected activity which is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. The EEOC views other acts to oppose discrimination also as protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she did not use legal terminology to describe the issue. EEOC’s view is that protections against retaliation extend to participation in an employer’s internal EEO complaint process, even if a charge of discrimination has not yet been filed with the EEOC. The EEOC also takes the position that participation in the EEO process is protected whether or not the EEO allegation is based on a reasonable, good faith belief that a violation occurred. While an employer is free to bring these to light in the EEO matter where it may rightly affect the outcome, the Retaliation Regs state it is unlawful retaliation for an employer to take matters into its own hands and impose consequences for participating in an EEO matter.

In addition to prohibition for participation in protected activities, EEO law also prohibits retaliation against an individual for “opposing” a perceived unlawful EEO practice. The EEOC construes prohibition against retaliation for opposition as prohibiting an employer or other covered entity from punishing an applicant or employee for communicating or taking other action in opposition of a perceived EEO violation if the individual acted reasonably and based on a reasonable good faith belief that the conduct opposed is or could become unlawful if repeated.

According to the EEOC, opposition also can be protected even if it is informal or does not include the words “harassment,” “discrimination,” or other legal terminology. A communication or act may be protected opposition as long as the circumstances show that the individual is conveying resistance to a perceived potential EEO violation such as, for example:

Complaining or threatening to complain about alleged discrimination against oneself or others;
Taking part in an internal or external investigation of employment discrimination, including harassment;
Filing or being a witness in a charge, complaint, or lawsuit alleging discrimination;
Communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment;
Answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment;
Refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination;
Resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others;
Reporting an instance of harassment to a supervisor;
Requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice;
Asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages;
Providing information in an employer’s internal investigation of an EEO matter;
Refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory;
Advising an employer on EEO compliance;
Resisting sexual advances or intervening to protect others;
Passive resistance (allowing others to express opposition);
Requesting reasonable accommodation for disability or religion;
Complaining to management about EEO-related compensation disparities;
Talking to coworkers to gather information or evidence in support of a potential EEO claim; or
Other acts of opposition.

In order for the protection against opposition to apply, however, the individual must act with a reasonable good faith belief that the conduct opposed is unlawful or could become unlawful if repeated. Opposition not based on such a good faith belief is not protected. Employers should note that the EEOC takes the position that opposition by an employee could qualify as reasonable opposition protected against retaliation when an employee or applicant complains about behavior that is not yet legally harassment (i.e., even if the mistreatment has not yet become severe or pervasive) or to complain about conduct the employee believes violates the EEO laws if the EEOC has adopted that interpretation, even if some courts disagree with the EEOC on the issue.

Furthermore, an individual opposing a perceived violation of an EEO law is disqualified for protection against retaliation for his opposition unless the individual behaves in a reasonable manner when expressing his opposition. For example, threats of violence, or badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement, are not protected opposition.

Subject to these conditions, however, the Guidance states that retaliation for opposing perceived unlawful EEOC practices need not be applied directly to the employee to qualify for protection. If an employer, employment agency or union takes an action against someone else, such as a family member or close friend, in order to retaliate against an employee, the EEOC says both individuals would have a legal claim against the employer.

Moreover, according to the EEOC, the prohibitions against retaliation for participation and opposition apply regardless of whether the person is suffers the retaliation for acting as a witness or otherwise participating in the investigation of a prohibited practice regarding an EEO complaint brought by others, or for complaining of conduct that directly affects himself.

Materially Adverse Action

To fall within EEO law prohibitions against retaliation, the retaliatory actions must be “materially adverse,” which the Guidance defines to include any action that under the facts and circumstances might deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity. This definition of “materially adverse” sweeps broadly to include more than employment actions such as denial of promotion, non-hire, denial of job benefits, demotion, suspension, discharge, or other actions that can be challenged directly as employment discrimination. It also encompasses within the scope of retaliation employer action that is work-related, as well as other actions with no tangible effect on employment, or even an action that takes place exclusively outside of work, as long as it may well dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.

Whether an action is materially adverse depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that transferring a worker to a harder, dirtier job within the same pay grade, and suspending her without pay for more than a month (even though the pay was later reimbursed) were both “materially adverse actions” that could be challenged as retaliation. The Supreme Court has also said that actionable retaliation includes: the FBI’s refusing to investigate death threats against an agent; the filing of false criminal charges against a former employee; changing the work schedule of a parent who has caretaking responsibilities for school-age children; and excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes to professional advancement.

In contrast, a petty slight, minor annoyance, trivial punishment, or any other action that is not likely to dissuade an employee from engaging in protected activity in the circumstances is not “materially adverse.” For example, courts have concluded on the facts of given cases that temporarily transferring an employee from an office to a cubicle was not a materially adverse action and that occasional brief delays by an employer in issuing refund checks to an employee that involved small amounts of money were not materially adverse.

The facts and circumstances of each case determine whether a particular action is retaliatory in that context. For this reason, the same action may be retaliatory in one case but not in another. Depending on the facts, other examples of “materially adverse” actions may include:

Work-related threats, warnings, or reprimands;
Negative or lowered evaluations;
Transfers to less prestigious or desirable work or work locations;
Making false reports to government authorities or in the media;
Filing a civil action;
Threatening reassignment;
Scrutinizing work or attendance more closely than that of other employees, without justification;
Removing supervisory responsibilities;
Engaging in abusive verbal or physical behavior that is reasonably likely to deter protected activity, even if it is not yet “severe or pervasive” as required for a hostile work environment;
Requiring re-verification of work status, making threats of deportation, or initiating other action with immigration authorities because of protected activity;
Terminating a union grievance process or other action to block access to otherwise available remedial mechanisms; or
Taking (or threatening to take) a materially adverse action against a close family member (who would then also have a retaliation claim, even if not an employee).

ADA Interference Claims

In addition to the need to manage potential exposures for prohibited retaliation, employers, employment agencies and unions also should be careful to manage their exposure to potential liability arising from claims for wrongful interference and individual’s exercise of the disability rights or protections granted under the ADA.

The ADA generally prohibits disability discrimination, limits an employer’s ability to ask for medical information, requires confidentiality of medical information, and gives employees who have disabilities the right to reasonable accommodations at work absent undue hardship and like other EEO laws, prohibits retaliation. In addition to its prohibitions against retaliation, however, the ADA also more broadly prohibits “interference” with statutory rights under the ADA.

Interference is broader than retaliation. The ADA’s interference provision makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or otherwise interfere with an individual’s exercise of ADA rights, or with an individual who is assisting another to exercise ADA rights.

In addition, the ADA also prohibits employers from interfering with ADA rights by doing anything that makes it more difficult for an applicant or employee to assert any of these rights such as using threats or other actions to discourage someone from asking for, or keeping, a reasonable accommodation; intimidating an applicant or employee into undergoing an unlawful medical examination; or pressuring an applicant or employee not to file a disability discrimination complaint.

Prohibited interference may be actionable under the ADA even if ineffective and even if the person subjected to intimidation goes on to exercise his ADA rights.

While acknowledging that some employer actions may be both retaliation and interference, or may overlap with unlawful denial of accommodation, the Guidance identifies the following actions as examples of interference prohibited under the ADA:
Coercing an individual to relinquish or forgo an accommodation to which he or she is otherwise entitled;
Intimidating an applicant from requesting accommodation for the application process by indicating that such a request will result in the applicant not being hired;
Threatening an employee with loss of employment or other adverse treatment if he does not “voluntarily” submit to a medical examination or inquiry that is otherwise prohibited under the statute;
Issuing a policy or requirement that purports to limit an employee’s rights to invoke ADA protections (e.g., a fixed leave policy that states “no exceptions will be made for any reason”);
Interfering with a former employee’s right to file an ADA lawsuit against the former employer by stating that a negative job reference will be given to prospective employers if the suit is filed; and
Subjecting an employee to unwarranted discipline, demotion, or other adverse treatment because he assisted a coworker in requesting reasonable accommodation.

According to the EEOC, a threat does not have to be carried out in order to violate the interference provision, and an individual does not actually have to be deterred from exercising or enjoying ADA rights in order for the interference to be actionable.

Strategies To Help Deter Or Rebut Retaliation Charges

Even though individuals claiming retaliation technically bear the burden of proving more likely than not that he suffered an adverse employment action more probably than not as a result of retaliation, an employer, employment agency or union charged with illegal retaliation frequently need to rebut or undermine a claimant’s evidence of retaliation by having and introducing admissible evidence that it a non-retaliatory reason for taking the challenged action such as evidence that:

The employer was not, in fact, aware of the protected activity;
There was a legitimate non-retaliatory motive for the challenged action, that the employer can demonstrate, such as poor performance; inadequate qualifications for position sought; qualifications, application, or interview performance inferior to the selectee; negative job references (provided they set forth legitimate reasons for not hiring or promoting an individual); misconduct (e.g., threats, insubordination, unexcused absences, employee dishonesty, abusive or threatening conduct, or theft); or reduction in force or other downsizing;
Similarly-situated applicants or employees who did not engage in protected activity were similarly treated;
Where the “but-for” causation standard applies, there is evidence that the challenged adverse action would have occurred anyway, despite the existence of a retaliatory motive; or
Other credible evidence showing a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retalitory motive behind the action.

It is important that employer other other potential defendants in retaliation actions recognize and take appropriate steps to create and retain evidence documenting these or other legitimate business reasons justifying the action prior to taking adverse action. Many employer or other defendants charged with discrimination or retaliation discover too late that a rule of evidence commonly referred to as the “After Acquired Evidence Doctrine” often prevents an employer or other defendant from using documentation or other evidence of motive created after the adverse action occurs. Consequently, employer and other potential targets of retaliation claims before taking the adverse action would be wise to carefully collect, document and retain the evidence and analysis showing their adverse action was taken for a legitimate, nonretalitory, nondiscriminatory reason rather than for any retaliatory purpose.

Other Defensive Actions & Strategies

Beyond taking care to document and retain evidence of its legitimate motivations for taking an adverse employment action, employers, employment agencies and unions interested in avoiding or enhancing their defenses against retaliation or interference claims also may find it helpful to:

Maintain a written, plain-language anti-retaliation and anti-interference policy that provides practical guidance on the employer’s expectations with user-friendly examples of what to do and not to do;
Send a message from top management that retaliation and interference are prohibited and will not be tolerated;
Ensure that top management understands and complies with policies against prohibited discrimination, retaliation and interference;
Consistently and fairly administer all equal employment opportunity and other policies and procedures in accordance with applicable laws in a documented, defensible manner;
Post and provide all required posters or other equal employment opportunity notices;
Timely and accurately complete and file all required EEO reports;
Clearly communicate orally and in writing the policy against prohibited retaliation and interference, as well as procedures for reporting, investigating and addressing concerns about potential violations of these policies in corporate policies as well as to employees complaining or participating in investigations or other protected activities;
Conduct documented training for all managers, supervisors and other employees and agents of the employer about policies against prohibited discrimination, retaliation, and interference including, as necessary, specific education about specific behaviors or situations that could raise retaliation or interference concerns, when and how to report or respond to such concerns and other actions to take to prevent or stop potential retaliation and interference;
Establish and administer clear policies and procedures for reporting and investigating claims or other indicators of potential prohibited employment discrimination, retaliation, interference including appropriate procedures for monitoring and protecting applicants and workers who have made claims of discrimination or have a record of involvement in activities that might qualify for corrective action;
Review performance, compensation and other criteria for potential evidence of overt or hidden bias or other evidence of potential prohibited retaliation or interference and take documented corrective action as needed to prevent improper bias from adversely corrupting decision-making process;
Conduct timely, well-documented investigations of all reports or other evidence of suspected discrimination, retaliation, and interference including any disciplinary, remedial or corrective action taken or foregone and the justification underlying these actions;
Obtain and enforce contractual reassurances from recruiting, staffing and other contractors to adhere to, and cooperate with the employer in its investigation and redress of the nondiscrimination, data collection and reporting, anti-retaliation and anti-interference requirements of equal employment opportunity and other laws;
Incorporate appropriate inquiries and other procedures for documented evaluating and monitoring that hiring, staffing, performance review, promotion, demotion, discipline, termination and other employment decisions and actions for evidence or other indicators of potential prohibited discrimination, retaliation, interference or other prohibited conduct and take corrective action as necessary based on the evidence developed; and
Designate appropriately empowered and trained members of the management of the employer to receive and investigate complaints and other potential concerns;
Arrange for an unbiased third party review of the adverse action or the performance or other decision criteria, processes and analysis that the employer or other defendant contemplates relying on to decide and implement employment decisions for indicators of potential discriminatory, retaliatory or other illegal or undesirable biasand take corrective action as needed to address those concerns before undertaking employment actions;
Evaluate and allocate appropriate funds within the employer’s budget to support the employer’s compliance efforts as well as to provide for the availability of sufficient funds to investigate and defend potential charges or public or private charges of illegal discrimination, retaliation or interference through the purchase of employment practices liablity or other insurance coverages or otherwise;
If a manager or other party recommends an adverse action in the wake of an employee’s filing of an EEOC charge or participation in other protected activity, conducting or arranging for an another party to ndependently evaluate whether the adverse action is appropriate;
Proactively seek assistance from qualified legal counsel with the design and review of policies, practices and operations, investigation and analysis of internal or external complaints or other concerns about potential prohibited discrimination, retaliation or interference, review and execution of termination, discipline or other workforce events to mitigate discrimination, retaliation or interference risks as well as the defense of EEOC or private enforcement actions; and
Be ever diligent in your efforts to prevent, detect and redress actions or situations that could be a basis for retaliation or interference claims.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecture and policy advocate, recognized for her nearly 30-years of cutting edge management work as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Labor & Employment,”“Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, a former ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and , Ms. Stamer helps management manage.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30-year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

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 control and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ 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 here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Manage Retaliation Risks In Response To Updated EEOC Enforcement Guidance, Rising Retaliation Claims | Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, compensation, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Disability, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Discrimination, E-Verify, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Government Contractors, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, LEP, LGBT, Management, Managment, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, Uncategorized, Workforce | Tagged: Civl Rights, Discrimination, EEOC, Employee, Employer, Employment Agency, employment discrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity, Interference, Retaliation, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans & Other HIPAA Entities Should Learn From $2.75M UMMC HIPAA Settlement

July 28, 2016

Employers, insurers and other health plan sponsors or issuers (health plans), health care providers, healthcare clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates should reevaluate the adequacy of their practices and procedures for the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices in light of the $2.75 million penalty and other schooling the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) just gave the University of Mississippi (UM) Medical Center (UMMC) documented in a July 7, 2016 Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) resolving OCR charges of multiple violations of the privacy, security and breach notification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) OCR says it uncovered while investigating UMMC’s breach notification report to OCR of the loss a laptop containing 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.

UMMC Report of Missing Laptop Leads To Multiple Charges & Resolution Agreement

Mississippi’s sole public academic health science center, UMMC provides patient care in four specialized hospitals on the Jackson campus and at clinics throughout Jackson and the State as well as conducts medical education and research functions. Its designated health care component, UMMC, includes University Hospital, the site of the breach in this case, located on the main UMMC campus in Jackson.

The settlement agreed to by UMMC stems from charges resulting from an OCR investigation of UMMC triggered by a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) affecting approximately 10,000 individuals.

Like many prior resolution agreements previously announced by OCR, UMMC’s HIPAA woes came to light after a laptop went missing. OCR learned of the breach and opened its investigation in response to a March 21, 2013 notification UMMC filed with OCR. UMMC made the breach notification to comply with HIPAA’s Breach Notification Rule requirement that health care providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) timely notify affected individuals, OCR and others of breaches of unsecured ePHI.

UMMC’s breach notification disclosed that UMMC’s privacy officer had discovered a password-protected laptop containing ePHI of thousands of UMMC patients missing from UMMC’s Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). UMMC additionally reported that based on its investigation, UMMC believed that the missing laptop likely was stolen by a visitor to the MICU who had inquired about borrowing one of the laptops.

After discovering the loss, UMMC disclosed the breach to local media and on its website and notified OCR of the breach but apparently did not individually notify the subjects of the missing ePHI.

In keeping with its announced policy of investigating all breach reports impacting 500 or more individuals, OCR opened an investigation into UMMC’s breach report. Based on this investigation, OCR concluded that while the laptop apparently was password protected, UMMC had breached the Security Rules because ePHI stored on a UMMC network drive was vulnerable to unauthorized access via UMMC’s wireless network because users could use a generic username and password to access an active directory containing 67,000 files including 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.

While OCR’s investigation confirmed that UMMC had implemented policies and procedures pursuant to the HIPAA Rules, OCR’s additionally found that the theft of the laptop that prompted UMMC’s breach report resulted from broad deficiencies in UMMC’s implementation and administration of these policies and its practices.

Based on these findings, OCR charged UMMC with the following HIPAA violations:

From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, through the settlement date, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(i) by failing to implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations, including conducting an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of the ePHI it holds, and implementing security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level;
From January 19, 2013, until March 1, 2014, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.310(c) by failing to implement physical safeguards for all workstations that access ePHI to restrict access to authorized users;
From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, to March 14, 2013, UM violated 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 (a)(2)(i) by failing to assign a unique user name and/or number for identifying and tracking user identity in information systems containing ePHI including, for example, allowing workforce members to access ePHI on a shared department network drive through a generic account, preventing UMMC from tracking which specific users were accessing ePHI; and
While UMMC provided notification on UMMC’s website and in local media outlets following the discovery of the reported breach of unsecured ePHI,, UMMC violated the Breach Notification Rule by failing to notify each individual whose unsecured ePHI was reasonably believed to have been accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed as a result of the breach.

Finally, OCR determined that UMMC was aware of risks and vulnerabilities to its systems as far back as April 2005, yet took no significant risk management activity until after the breach, due largely to organizational deficiencies and insufficient institutional oversight.

To resolve these charges, UMMC agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR $2.75 million and implement a comprehensive compliance plan which among other things, requires UMMC to conduct a sweeping review and correct its HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification policies and their implementation and administration to comply with HIPAA as well as implement and administer detailed management and OCR oversight and reporting processes over the implementation and administration of these procedures.

Lessons For Other Covered Entities From UMMC Resolution Agreement

The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement contains several key lessons for other covered entities and their business associates, which OCR’s July 21, 2016 announcement warns other covered entities and business associates to heed..

Certainly, the $2.75 million settlement amount reaffirms that covered entities and their business associates risk substantial liability for failing to properly assess and protect the security of ePHI in accordance with HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rule.

Furthermore, the charges and Resolution Agreement also adds a new twist to OCR’s now well established to stiffly sanction covered entities and their business associates that fail appropriately assess and address risks to the security of their ePHI on or accessible from laptops or other mobile devices. Through previous resolution agreements and guidance, OCR has made clear that it interprets the HIPAA Security Rule as generally requiring that covered entities and business associates encrypt all laptops or other mobile devices containing ePHI. The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement makes clear that the responsibility to protect ePHI on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices does not end with encryption. Rather, the Resolution Agreement makes clear that covered entities and their business associates also must take appropriate, well-documented steps to monitor, assess, identify, and timely and effectively address other potential risks to the security of the ePHI.

The Resolution Agreement makes clear that these additional responsibilities include, but are not necessarily limited to ensuring that proper safeguards are implemented and enforced to secure access not only to the ePHI contained on the laptop as well as other data bases and systems containing ePHI accessible through the laptop. In this respect, the Resolution Agreement particularly highlights the need for covered entities and their business associates to assess risks and take appropriate steps:

To safeguard the physical security of laptops and other mobile devices;
To prevent the use of generic or other unsecure passwords to access ePHI on or accessible through the laptop or other mobile device;
To establish and administer appropriate, well-documented processes for assessing and addressing the adequacy of safeguards for and potential threats to the security of ePHI both initially and on an ongoing basis in a manner that meaningfully assesses the actual risks and effectiveness of safeguards against these risks, including those resulting from nonadherence to required safeguards and practices such as the sharing of passwords, changing systems or circumstances, and other developments that potentially threaten the adequacy of ePHI security.

Furthermore, OCR’s July 21, 2016 press release concerning the Resolution Agreement also sends a clear message to all covered entities and business associates that OCR views HIPAA as requiring organizations not only to adopt written policies and procedures that comply on paper or in theory with HIPAA, but also to take steps to monitor and maintain the effectiveness of their safeguard by continuously assessing and monitoring their HIPAA risks and acting as necessary to ensure that required safeguards of protected health information and ePHI and other HIPAA requirements are effectively implemented and administered in operation as well as form.

In OCR’s Press Release announcing the Resolution Agreement, OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. Stated, “We at OCR remain particularly concerned with unaddressed risks that may lead to impermissible access to ePHI.” She also warned “In addition to identifying risks and vulnerabilities to their ePHI, entities must also implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to address them within an appropriate time frame.”

Additionally, the Resolution Agreement also illustrates need for covered entities and business associates to timely provide all individual and other notifications and otherwise fully comply with all requirements of the Breach Notification Rules.

Since the risk of a breach is ever-present even for Covered Entities and business associates exercising the highest degree of care to safeguard PHI and maintain compliance with HIPAA, Covered Entities and business associates are wise to take steps to position themselves to be able to demonstrate the adequacy of both their written policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation and enforcement including ongoing documented practices for assessing, monitoring and addressing security risks and other compliance concerns as well as prepare to comply with the breach notification requirements in the event they experience their own breach of unsecured ePHI.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.

Ms. Stamer’s health industry experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is known for her experience in HIPAA and other privacy and data security and breach concerns. The scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.

You can get more information about her health industry experience here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns.

If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates like the following:

Go here to register to receive other Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates and announcements about other upcoming briefings, training or other programs, products, services, and activities or to learn more about Solutions Law Press, Inc., its publications, programs and training, PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment community service and education projects, event management and other resources and services.

For important information concerning this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on Health Plans & Other HIPAA Entities Should Learn From $2.75M UMMC HIPAA Settlement | Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, ERISA, FACTA, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Mental Health Parity, Uncategorized | Tagged: Business Associate, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, employee benefitsd, Employer, Health Insurance, Health Insurer, HIPAA, Insurance, Medical Privacy, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Employer & Employee Benefit Fines Going Up

July 1, 2016

Employers, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and others caught violating Federal employment, employee benefit, and a wide range of other laws and regulations ranging from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and many other Federal Labor and employment laws should brace for increased civil penalties and other changes in the calculation of these penalties under interium rules just released by the DOL. Employers and other parties must comply with these rules but if concerned with these Interium Rules, will have 45 days to comment before DOL will publish any final rule.

In 2015, Congress passed the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act, which requires the Department of Labor (DOL) and other agencies adjust their penalties for inflation each year.
In response to this mandate, the DOL has published two interim final rules to adjust its penalties for inflation effective August 1:

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Catch-Up Adjustments, which is DOL-only rule covering the vast majority of penalties assessed by a number of the DOL’s agencies including the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, and Wage and Hour Division; and
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Catch-Up Adjustments: H-2B Temporary Non-agricultural Worker Program, which will be issued jointly with the Department of Homeland Security to adjust penalties associated with the H-2B temporary guest worker program

Both rules define rules that DOL plans to use to apply the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act’s formula on how to determine the proper adjustment for each penalty effective August 1, 2016 to civil penalties that DOL can assess against employers for violations.

The new method will adjust penalties for inflation, though the amount of the increase is capped at 150 percent of the existing penalty amount. The baseline is the last increase other than for inflation. The new civil penalty amounts are applicable only to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, whose associated violations occurred after Nov. 2, 2015.

The rules published under the 2015 law will increase some penalties that DOL perceives have lost ground to inflation including:

OSHA’s maximum penalties, which have not been raised since 1990, will increase by 78 percent. The top penalty for serious violations will rise from $7,000 to $12,471. The maximum penalty for willful or repeated violations will increase from $70,000 to $124,709.
OWCP’s penalty for failure to report termination of payments made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, has only increased $10 since 1927, and will rise from $110 to $275.
WHD’s penalty for willful violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act will increase from $1,100 to $1,894.

A list of each agency’s individual penalty adjustments is available here.

In addition to increasing its civil penalties, the DOL has indicated that in response to these changes, it will update the FLSA Minimum Wage Poster and other required labor posters before the August 1, 2016 effective date.

Since these impending increases raise the civil penalty exposures for employers in the most heavily enforced by the DOL, employers now have an even greater need to tighten their compliance and risk management practices under these laws.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecture and policy advocate, recognized for her nearly 30-years of cutting edge management work as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Health Care” by D Magazine.

Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.

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

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer serves on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and as an editorial advisor and contributing author of many other publications. Her leadership involvements with the American Bar Association (ABA) include year’s serving many years as a Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; ABA RPTE Section current Practice Management Vice Chair and Substantive Groups & Committees Committee Member, RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee Past Group Chair and Diversity Award Recipient, current Defined Contribution Plans Committee Co-Chair, and past Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Chair Co-Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; International Section Life Sciences Committee Policy Vice Chair; and a speaker, contributing author, comment chair and contributor to numerous Labor, Tax, RPTE, Health Law, TIPS, International and other Section publications, programs and task forces. Other selected service involvements of note include Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; past EO Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former Southwest Benefits Association Board of Directors member, Continuing Education Chair and Treasurer; former Texas Association of Business BACPAC Committee Member, Executive Committee member, Regional Chair and Dallas Chapter Chair; former Society of Human Resources Region 4 Chair and Consultants Forum Board Member and Dallas HR Public Policy Committee Chair; former National Board Member and Dallas Chapter President of Web Network of Benefit Professionals; former Dallas Business League President and others. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

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 control and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at Solutionslawpress.com including:

OFCCP Ups Government Contractor Vet Hiring Targets
Average American Family 2016 Healthcare
Brace For OCR HIPAA Audits
Health Plans Disclosing Data To State All Payer Data Banks Face HIPAA Risks
Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New HIPAA Guidance
Frontier Says “Conversion Issues” for
Obama Offers Grants To States To Boost Paid Leave Availability With State Grants
Business Associate Rule Violations Behind $750K HIPAA Settlement
Final Investment Advice Fiduciary Rules Mean Work For Employers, Fiduciaries & Advisors
Employers, Insurers & TPAS: Budget Time, $ For 2017 Summary of Benefits and Coverage Updates
Expect New Fed Regs To Increase Childcare Costs
OSHA Raises Silica Safety Requirements
DOL “Persuader Rule” Changes Broaden Employer & Consultant Anti-Union Contract Disclosure Duties
Check Health Plan Privacy For New Guidance Compliance
Marketplace Data Deficiencies Signal Employer ACA Headaches
SCOTUS: States Can’t Require Reporting of ERISA Health Plan Data
IRS OK’s Skipping Certain 2015 Form 5500 Questions
DOL Proposes Changes To Summary of Benefit & Coverage Rules
More proof government should stay out of healthcare
Health Care Quality: Different Meaning For Care Vs. Coverage
IRS Changes Plan Qualification Procedures, Returns, Other Procedures
Remember Microsoft: The Need for Effective Risk Management as to Contract Employees
Obama Administration Proposes Rules Giving Jobseeker Equal Opportunity Protections
Health Benefit Still Top Employer Benefit Cost
S. Businesses & Their Leaders Face Rising FLSA Collective Action Liability Risks
Improve HR Value To Company By Making HR A Performance Rather Than People Department
Sponsoring Employers Face Excise Taxes, Other Liabilities Unless Health Plans Comply With ACA Out-Of-Pocket & Other Federal Rules
Legal Review Of Health Plan Documents, Processes Needed To Mitigate Employer’s Excise Tax & Other Health Plan Risks
EEOC ADA Suit Against Magnolia Health Highlights US Employer’s Growing Disability Discrimination Risks
Proposed OSHA Regs Will Clarify Employer’s Continuing Duty To Ensure OSHA 300 Log Completeness
10 Practical Pointers To Use Law To Better Strengthen The Legal Defensibility Of Your Business & Its Leaders

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on DOL Employer & Employee Benefit Fines Going Up | Accommodation, ADA, compliance, Contraception, Cybercrime, directors, E-Verify, EEOC, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Discrimination, ERISA, fiduciary duty, FMLA, GINA, h-2A Visa, health reform, HIPAA, Hiring, Insurance, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, LEP, mine safety, Obamacare, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, SBC, Uncategorized, Union, Union certification, Union elections, visas, Wellness, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Must Tread Carefully To Manage Foreign Worker Employment & Employment Discrimination Explosures

June 23, 2016

A $180,000 wrongful termination settlement that Foothill Packing, Inc. just paid to settle Department of Labor charges illustrates the potential Catch-22 tightrope that employers must walk when choosing between citizens and resident aliens with visas for hiring and firing decisions.

The Foothill wrongful termination settlement resolving H-2A visa rule violation charges illustrates an often overlooked side of the potential Catch-22 that U.S. employers can face when making hiring and other employment choices between work-eligible foreign and U.S. citizen employees or candidates.

Usually, we hear about employers nailed for employment discrimination against noncitizens. This time, firing U.S. citizens and keeping foreign workers was the problem.

Employers Must Juggle Many Duties When Dealing With Foreign Applicants & Workers

The H-2A visa program requirements established by the labor provisions of the of the Immigration and Nationality Act and provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (H-2A visa program) allows companies and farm labor contractors to bring in foreign agricultural workers on a temporary basis when an adequate amount of qualified U.S. workers cannot be found to perform the work. As a condition to qualifying to hire foreign workers under the program, the H-2A program explicitly requires all jobs in this country must be offered to U.S. citizens before an employer may receive authorization to hire foreign workers. To fulfill this requirement, an employer must demonstrate that it made required efforts to hire U.S. workers prior to having their visas approved. Employers also must not give H-2A workers preferential treatment or wrongfully discharge U.S. workers.

The H-2A visa program requirement that employers offer work to available U.S. workers before seeking to employ foreign workers under a H-2A visa exists concurrent with the national origin and race discrimination prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII, among other things, generally prohibits U.S. employers from discriminating in hiring or other terms and conditions of employment based on a worker’s national origin, ancestry or race. The national origin discrimination prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act generally extend to any discriminatory employment decision by an is covered by Title VII, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, transfer, wages and benefits, work assignments, leave, training and apprenticeship programs, discipline and layoff and termination.

Beyond the national origin, race and other nondiscrimination requirements of Title VII, employers dealing with workers who are not U.S. citizens also generally are accountable for complying with various other nondiscrimination and other employment laws including but not limited to the following:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which prohibits employers with four or more employees from discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens and certain classes of foreign nationals authorized to work in the United States with respect to hiring, referral, or discharge. IRCA also prohibits national origin discrimination by employers with between four and fourteen employees.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): The FLSA requires, among other things, that covered workers, including those who are not U.S. citizens, be paid no less than the federally designated minimum wage.
Employment of foreign nationals under special visa programs, such as H-1B and H-2A visas, also may be subject to certain requirements related to wages, working conditions, or other aspects of employment.
When making employment decisions and taking hiring or other employment actions involving foreign workers on H-2A visas or otherwise, employers must understand and tread carefully to comply with all of these requirements.

DOL Chared Foothill Violated H-2A Visa Program By Retaining Foreign Workers While Terminating U.S. Citizens

According to the June 13, 2016 U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL) announcement of the Foothill settlement, DOL investigators determined that Foothill, a packing and labeling company, violated the H-2 visa program by terminating 18 workers, who were U.S. citizens, that Foothill claimed failed to meet production standards when the investigation found that many of the terminated workers consistently exceeded the production of many of the foreign workers Foothill continued to employ to the same jobs. In reaching this finding, the DOL interpreted the H-2A visa program requirement that H-2A program’s prohibition against providing preferential treatment to foreign worker as extending to layoffs.

To resolve the charges, Foothill Packing paid $180,000 in back wages to the 18 terminated workers and also paid $55,000 in penalties for the violations of H-2A provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The settlement agreement also requires Foothill to:

Designate a staff member whose primary job duties consist of monitoring and reporting the firm’s compliance with all H-2A regulatory requirements;
Provide annual training to all frontline supervisors involved with the H-2A program;
Provide detailed reasons for any future terminations to the U.S. Department of Labor; and
Otherwise comply with the labor provisions of the requirements of the H-2A Visa Program.

Reconciliation Of H-2A Visa Rules With Civil Rights Act Nondiscrimination Rules

The key to reconciling the H-2A visa program requirement that employers show preference to U.S. workers over H-2A visa workers in hiring and retaining workers and the race and national origin employment discrimination prohibitions of Title VII is understanding that Title VII’s protections are construed and enforced as extending to all work-eligible workers in the United States, whether born in the United States or abroad and regardless of citizenship status.

While Title VII does not prohibit citizenship discrimination per se, citizenship discrimination does violate Title VII where it has the “purpose or effect” of discriminating on the basis of national origin. For example, a citizenship requirement would be unlawful if it is a “pretext” for national origin discrimination, or if it is part of a wider scheme of national origin discrimination.

The H-2A visa program’s requirement that an employer show preference for U.S. workers over workers whose eligibility for employment is based on a H-2A visa is based on the eligibility of the employer to work in the United States under United States immigration laws. As such, when the adverse action is taken against a worker using a H-2A visa for eligibility to work, the action is based on eligibility to work required by the I-9 verification rules, and not based on the ancestry, place or origin, race or other elements of national origin.

Whether or not dealing with a H-2A visa worker, however, employers still must tread carefully to conduct and document their employment actions with respect to workers to withstand scrutiny under both requirements in the event of a challenge on either or both fronts. Both doing the right thing and documenting throughout the process is critical as the “after acquired evidence” rules of evidence applicable to employment discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act could prevent an employer from presenting documentation or other evidence to support an employer’s defense of a valid, nondiscriminatory business purpose to rebut discrimination claims in the event of litigation or a government investigation or charge.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, recognized for her nearly 30-years of cutting edge management work as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Health Care” by D Magazine.

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 control and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at Solutionslawpress.com such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Employers Must Tread Carefully To Manage Foreign Worker Employment & Employment Discrimination Explosures | Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, h-2A Visa, Immigration, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Uncategorized | Tagged: Discrimination, Employer, I-9 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Obama Administration Proposes Rules Giving Jobseeker Equal Opportunity Protections

January 26, 2016

In keeping with President Obama’s administration long agenda of expanding equal employment and discrimination protections and enforcement, the Obama Administration now is proposing new regulations that if adopted as proposed, would expand the equal employment and nondiscrimination protections applicable for individuals receiving services through federal apprenticeships and other programs or activities provided by partners at American Job Centers and other key workforce programs that aid jobseekers administered by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center (CRC).

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by CRC on January 25, 2016, CRC proposed to revise its current regulations, which were originally adopted in 1999 both:

To implement the expanded nondiscrimination and equal opportunity obligations made under Section 188 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) signed into law in July 2014; and
To reflect the Obama Administration’s expansive interpretation, enforcement and other practices of protections for transgender, gender identity, pregnancy, limited English proficiency (LEP) and other individuals against discrimination implemented by the Obama Administration in its enforcement of other federal equal employment and other nondiscrimination laws.

WIOA Implementation Identified As Reason For Proposed Regulations

In the cases of the CRC’s proposed regulations, the CRC identifies its need to adopt regulations to implement the WIOA as the reason for its restatement of its equal opportunity regulations at this time.

The Obama Administration is using its adoption of implementing regulations for WIOA Section 188 to revise and update the CRC’s equal opportunity rules generally to reflect changes in the interpretation of federal employment and other nondiscrimination rules already adopted during Mr. Obama’s presidency in other federal equal rights and nondiscrimination laws and regulations.

WIOA Section 188 prohibits discrimination against individuals participating in any job training for adults and youth, apprenticeships, and programs or activities provided by partners at American Job Centers or other covered program or activity that receives financial assistance under Title I of WIOA because of the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief of the individual participating in the program and, for beneficiaries only, because of their citizenship status. The WIOA discrimination and equal opportunity rules apply to recipients of financial assistance under Title I of WIOA and to program partners at American Job Centers that offer programs or activities through the workforce development system including partners that conduct related programs or activities through the One-Stop delivery system such as Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, adult education, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and others. The CRC’s proposed regulations are the latest of the growing responsibilities and risks that private businesses and state and local government agencies increasingly face to lawsuits, agency audits and sanctions, program disqualification, and other enforcement actions under federal equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination requirements, particularly in light of the expanded scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination laws implemented during the Obama Administration by statutory, regulatory, executive order or other federal action. The extension of these changes into the CRC regulations reflects the continuing commitment of the Obama Administration to implement and enforce these expansions as fully as possible before Mr. Obama leaves office.

Highlights of Proposed CRC Regulations

If adopted as proposed by the CRC, the proposed rule would update the equal opportunity and nondiscrimination requirements applicable to American Job Centers and other WIOA partners working within the workforce development system to:

Align the equal opportunity and nondiscrimination protections for individuals in WIOA programs with current regulations and guidance issued by the Departments of Justice and Education, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal agencies regarding the following equal opportunity and discrimination laws:
- Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;
- The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008; and
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Clarify that sex discrimination under the WIOA, as under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, includes discrimination based on transgender status, gender identity, or sex-stereotyping as well as pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
Clarify that discrimination based on national origin may include discrimination because someone has limited English proficiency (LEP) and strengthen the ability of the Labor Department and private plaintiffs to enforce this expectation by requiring recipients and partners to:
- Record the primary language of applicants, participants and beneficiaries in their programs;
- Take “reasonable steps” to ensure that LEP individuals have meaningful access to aid, benefits, services, and training;
- Notify participants about these rights, including offering oral interpretation and written translation of both hard-copy and electronic materials in non-English languages.
- The Proposed Rule also would clarify which CRC views as “vital” documents required to be translated and include an appendix describing promising practices to help recipients comply with their legal obligations and includes the components of a plan to facilitate meaningful access for individuals with limited English proficiency.
Change the equal opportunity notice or poster that the Labor Department requires recipients and partners to post to inform individuals participating in their programs and activities about their equal employment opportunity protections and rights to reflect these expanded rights and responsibilities by among other things, clearly state that “sex,” as a prohibited basis for discrimination, includes pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, transgender status, gender identity, and sex stereotyping and that discrimination against LEP persons may be a form of national origin discrimination.
Promote the ability of the Labor Department and private plaintiffs to enforce compliance by among other things:
- Implementing clearer and broader descriptions of recipient and partner responsibilities, more effective Equal Opportunity Officers, and enhanced data collection;
- Expanding recipient and partner recordkeeping and requiring other actions that will make proof of violations easier;
- Requiring annual monitoring, instead of the current “periodic” monitoring and other increased enforcement in accord with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in accord with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

CRC Proposal Reflects Broader Agency Regulatory & Enforcement Agenda For All U.S. Businesses & State & Local Agencies

While the CRC’s proposed regulations most directly impact those providing services or programs to jobseekers and other assistance under CRC administered programs, the proposed regulations also are yet another strong sign for private businesses and state and local government agencies alike of the need to step up their compliance and risk management in light of expanded responsibilities and enforcement of federal equal employment opportunity laws under the Obama Administration. As a result, all U.S. businesses as well as state and local government agencies should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements as well as strengthen oversight and investigation practices, tighten vendor contracts, explore insurance or other options for planning for funding costs of defending investigations, litigation or other enforcement actions, and other heightened compliance and risk management strategies and practices.

About The Author

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick│Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30- year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or StamerChadwickSoefje.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on Obama Administration Proposes Rules Giving Jobseeker Equal Opportunity Protections | ADA, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Disability, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Education, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Government Contractors, LEP, LGBT, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC ADA Suit Against Magnolia Health Highlights US Employer’s Growing Disability Discrimination Risks

August 18, 2015

A new disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Visalia, California -based Magnolia Health Corporation and its affiliates (Magnolia) highlights the need for healthcare industry and other U.S. employers adequacy and defensibility of their practices for offering accommodation to, hiring, screening and other employment practices with respect to persons with actual or perceived disabilities in light of the EEOC’s prioritization of disability discrimination enforcement under the Obama Administration.

In keeping with President Obama’s announced agenda, the EEOC has made disability and other discrimination regulations and enforcement a major priority. The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan includes eliminating class-based and other recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against people with disabilities and other classes protected under federal employment discrimination laws among its top six national priorities. In furtherance of these priorities, the EEOC and other federal agencies both have expanded regulatory protections for persons with disabilities and significantly stepped up investigation and enforcement of disability discrimination claims against businesses accused or suspected of discriminating against disabled or other persons protected under federal discrimination laws. See e.g., Discrimination Rules Create Risks For Employer Reliance On Injunction Of FMLA Rule On Same-Sex Partners’ Marital Status; EEOC Suit Against Pipe Fitting Business Shows Disability Discrimination Risks For Employers Hiring Vets With PTSD; EEOC Charges Employer Violated ADA By Terminating Employment At FMLA Leave End; Texas Employers Top Target For EEOC Charges; Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries; Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Workers.

In keeping with this aggressive enforcement agenda, the EEOC’s suit filed August 8, 2015 against Magnolia reflects this enforcement emphasis. In the suit, the EEOC asks the Federal District Court to award backpay, compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the class, as well as impose injunctive relief to prevent and address alleged “systemic” practices of disability discrimination in violation of the ADA by Magnolia.

Specifically, the EEOC lawsuit charges Magnolia with engaging since 2012 in systematic discrimination based on disability, a record of disability and perceived disability in violation of the ADA by refusing to hire and denying accommodations with persons disabilities, and ultimately firing individuals that Magnolia regarded as disabled, had a record of a disability or had an actual disability. The EEOC says Magnolia’s prohibited discriminatory practices included only offering positions to certain applicants under the condition that the applicants pass a medical examination, as well as discharging or revoking job offers when it learned of or received records of prior medical conditions or current medical restrictions.

When announcing the suit, the EEOC made clear it intends the lawsuit to send a message to all U.S. employers. “Requiring individuals to be free from any need for accommodation is a trend that the EEOC is seeing in our region. Disability discrimination remains a persistent problem that needs more attention by employers,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for EEOC’s Los Angeles District.

Meanwhile, Director for EEOC’s Fresno Local Office Melissa Barrios warned, “Employers must try to accommodate individuals with disabilities by exploring effective ways to allow them to work provided there is no undue hardship.” Ms. Barrios added, “Employment decisions, such as denying hire or firing, that are made without engaging in that critical interactive process run afoul of the law.”

With the EEOC continuing to emphasize ADA enforcement, U.S. employers should exercise care to ensure that their employment screening, hiring, accommodation and other duties both are properly designed and administered for defensibility under the ADA. Healthcare or other employers should not presume that the EEOC or the courts automatically to accept as obvious or without question that the nature of their business or a particular position disqualifies an individual or class of individuals with a physical or mental disability, past history of injury or illness or other actual or perceived physical or mental limitation automatically for employment in that position. Rather, employers making hiring or other employment decisions should be prepared to prove that their organization complies with the ADA in word and in deed by both adopting policies of compliance and ensuring that those policies are appropriately administered in a well-documented fashion so that the documentation. Employers that decide not to hire an individual with an actual or perceived disability for safety or other reasons should be prepared in the event of a disability discrimination challenge to show that hiring or other employment decisions with respect to individuals with actual, perceived or records of disabilities were made without impermissible disability discrimination. An employer determining that an individual with an actual, perceived or record of disability should be prepared to show that this determination was made either without regard to the individual’s disability or that the individual does not qualify even with reasonable accommodation, that accommodation would be unreasonably costly, or accommodation could not eliminate the safety or other proven barriers to qualification of the individual for the position. Businesses and business leaders concerned with managing these and other disability discrimination risks should keep in mind that evidentiary rules make it important that businesses ensure that in addition to maintaining appropriate written policies, they also conduct their employment activities appropriately to minimize the creation of evidence that could create or support discrimination claims as well as documentation to support the employer’s planned defenses.

For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information

If you need help responding to these new or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, help updating or defending your workforce or employee benefit policies or practices, or other related assistance, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms.Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

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

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com, or www.stamerchadwicksoefje.com the member of contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Comments Off on EEOC ADA Suit Against Magnolia Health Highlights US Employer’s Growing Disability Discrimination Risks | Accommodation, ADA, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Hiring, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Professional Liability, Rehabilitation Act, Risk Management | Tagged: Accommodation, ADA, compliance, Disability Discrimination, EEOC Employer, Employment Practices Liability, Health Care, Human Resources, Rehabilitation Act, Risk Management, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer