Leave |

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

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

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

About the Author

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.™

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 Expected To Pass COVID-19 Relief Bill With Paid Leave Mandates & Expanded Unemployment Funding This Week

March 15, 2020

U.S. employers need to prepare for their likely need to deal with paid family medical leave, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance and other employer impacting provisions of the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” (H.R. 6201) passed by the House of Representatives last week and expected to pass the Senate in some form this week as part of Congressional efforts to mitigate impacts of disruptions of the COVID-19 containment disruptions. Since the paid leave mandates would take effect 15 days from enactment, employers will want to prepare to comply and take into account the likely mandates when planning and communicating with workers and dealing with other financial and operational disruptions from the crisis.Solutions Law Press, INC. is planning to host a briefing for employers on the requirements after passed by Congress. For an invitation, register at http://www.solutiinslawpress.com or email here.

Paid Family Medical Leave

As passed by the House, the paid leave requirements currently only apply to employers with fewer than 500 employees and are accompanied by tax credit provisions intended to help covered businesses pay the cost of compliance. The bill’s paid leave requirements add special job-protected paid leave to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for employees who have been working for at least 30 calendar days. In particular, covered employees would be entitled to 12 weeks of paid family leave, of which the first 14 days may be unpaid, to respond to quarantine requirements or recommendations, to care for family members who are responding to quarantine requirements or recommendations, and to care for a child whose school has been closed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (“COVID Leave”). The bill also provides employees may. but employers can’t require employees to use accrued personal or sick leave during the first 14 days. After the initial 14 days, covered employers must compensate employees in an amount that is not less than two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay. Because the leave is FMLA covered, employers should expect to be required to continue health coverage during the leave at usual employee contribution rates and to reinstate the employee to their position with all benefits and employment rights and seniority upon timely return. The provisions will take effect 15 days after the date of enactment and expire on December 31, 2020.

Paid Sick Leave

Employers with fewer than 500 employees will be required to provide full-time employees 2 weeks (80 hours) of paid sick leave for COVID-19 specific circumstances related to COVID-19 such as self-isolating, doctors’ visits or the like. Part-time employees would be entitled to the number of hours of paid sick time equal to the average number of hours worked over a 2-week period.

Employers must pay employees for any paid sick time taken at their regular rates of pay and will be required to post a notice informing employees of their rights to leave.

Since the bill expressly does not, as currently drafted, the bill expressly provides that it does not preempt existing state or local paid sick leave entitlements, employers also could face additional requirements under state or local law.

Like the COVID leave, these provisions also will go into effect 15 days after the date of enactment and expire on December 31, 2020.

Unemployment Insurance

The bill also includes $1 billion in emergency unemployment insurance (UI) relief to the states: $500 million for costs associated with increased administration of each state’s unemployment insurance (“UI”) program and places $500 million in reserve to help states with a 10 percent increase in unemployment. To receive a portion of this grant money, states mustveclerience the required increase in unemployment and temporarily ease certain UI eligibility requirements, such as waiting periods and work search requirements.

Prospects For Enactment

Although some Senators raised questions about certain provisions of the bill, it is expected to pass in some form this week as Congress and the Administration rush to provide relief for workers and business impacted by the economic effects of the COVID-18 pandemic containment efforts. Accordingly, covered employers should expect Congress to pass and President Trump to sign the bill this week. Meanwhile all employers also should brace for added legislation and regulation as well as continued operational and financial disruption as the COVID-19 virus impacts continue to roll out across the U.S. and around the World.

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 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 pandemic and other health and safety, financial, workforce and other organizational crisis, change and workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 30 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an an 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 operational, health care, natural disaster, economic and other crisis and change.

Author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans, “How to Conduct A Reduction In Force,” and a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on workforce, compliance, health care and health benefits, pandemic and other health crisis, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with employers, insurers, health industry organizations and providers and domestic and international community and government 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 privaitization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, workforce, health care and other reform, 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.

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 and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. 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.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the 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 constantly and often rapidly 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.

©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 Congress Expected To Pass COVID-19 Relief Bill With Paid Leave Mandates & Expanded Unemployment Funding This Week | compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, family leave, Family Leave, Government Contractors, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Leave, Pandemic, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Wage & Hour | Tagged: COVID-19, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Health Plan, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS

November 7, 2019

Lanier Technical College, a unit of the Technical College System of Georgia, will pay $53,000 in back pay and compensatory damages and revise its policies and procedures to settle a Justice Department lawsuit alleging the College violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating along-time College employee based on her multiple sclerosis filed in the Northern District Of Georgia on November 4, 2019. In addition to this disability discrimination allegation, the Justice Department complaint also alleges the removed the employee from the teaching schedule for an entire school semester, thus reducing her hours and pay to zero, due to her multiple sclerosis after the employee took three days of sick leave one summer. The lawsuit and its settlement reminds academic health care and other public and private employers about the need to use appropriate care to avoid inappropriate discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment and other operations.

The College had employed the terminated employee as a part-time emergency medical technician (EMT) lab assistant for over three years before the events prompting the lawsuit took place. The essential functions of her job involved assisting instructors in the classroom and in the lab, and perform “check offs” to authorize and certify that the students mastered particular technical competencies (e.g., properly taking blood pressure, starting a patient’s I.V., assessing a patient’s vital signs). In addition to her employment with the College, the former employee also worked as a paramedic for an unrelated employer. She continued to work as a full-time paramedic for nearly three years after the College terminated her employment as a part-time lab assistant.

Less than a year into her employment at the College, the former employee was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2010. Shortly after her diagnosis the former employee notified among others, notified the Director of the Lanier Paramedicine Technology (PMT) Department, Sam Stone, of her condition and Mr. Stone subsequently discussed her MS and treatment with her over the course of her employment with the College. According to the Justice Department complaint, the former employee did not require any reasonable accommodations for her disability, remained qualified to perform the essential functions of the part-time lab assistant job, and did so successfully until College discharged her or otherwise altered her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

In 2012, the former employee assisted with classes and labs taught by Instructor Andy Booth. Instructor Booth managed the work schedule for all the part-time EMT lab assistants who assisted with his classes, including that of the former employee. This included the ability to remove lab assistants from any shifts they requested. Director Stone then completed a final review of the semester and approved the schedule and any changes to it.

During the summer of 2012, the former employee had to miss her assigned workdays on two or three occasions due to her MS and its treatment. She also was on disability leave from her paramedic job for a period during that summer, returning to work full-time in early August. Following these absences, Instructor Booth on August 30, 2012 sent an email to lab assistants, including the former employee requesting that lab assistants sign up for open shifts on the work schedule, as he was “still short on help.” The schedule with available shifts was posted for September through December 2012. The former employee signed up for seven or eight four-hour shifts over the course of the fall semester that same day and emailed Instructor Booth the evening of August 30 to inform him of this. In her email, she indicated that she was no longer on disability leave from her other job.

Two weeks later, on September 12, 2012, the College removed the former employee from the work schedule for the entire fall semester schedule on the written instructions of Instructor Booth with the approval of Director Stone. Instructor Booth’s September 12 email instructions to his assistant provided a link to the online work schedule for the lab assistants and stated: “Any day you see [the former employee], just take her off.” Director Stone was copied on this email. That same day, Director Stone replied to Instructor Booth’s email, stating that he had reviewed all of the dates up to December and approved the schedule. The College knew that, by removing the former employee from the schedule, it was terminating her employment with Lanier.

When the former employee realized that someone removed her from the schedule for the entire semester, she contacted Instructor Booth. He told the former employee, by text message, that it was Director Stone’s decision and that Director Stone wanted to give the former employee “some time to heal.” Instructor Booth also stated that Director Stone seemed upset about the former employee missing a few days in the summer due to her MS. Instructor Booth then directed the former employee to speak to Director Stone. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Thereafter, on September 26, 2012, the former employee contacted Director Stone by email. After telling Director Stone i her email that Instructor Booth said Director Stone was managing the schedule and had wanted to give her “some time to heal,” she reassured him that she appreciated his concern but that she felt she was “OK.” When Director Stone responded on September 23, he confirmed the correctness of Director Stone’s email and also confirmed that he was concerned with the former employee’s health. He offered to discuss these concerns further with her in private. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Later that day, the former employee called Director Stone. On the call, Director Stone expressed concern about legal and liability issues and whether the former employee was fit to work because of her MS. He said that he, as the Department Director, had to be concerned about her health and medical issues, because a student could challenge a grade on the basis that her MS made her unfit to evaluate students. Director Stone also referenced a couple days that the former employee missed work due to her MS during the summer, and stated that she was less reliable than other lab assistants were at that point. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Approximately six months later, College removed the former employee from the payroll and changed her payroll status to “terminated.”

On September 26, 2012, the former employee filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that College terminated her because of her disability in violation of the ADA. The Justice Department filed the lawsuit after the EEOC referred the former employee’s complaint to it.

Title I of the ADA prohibits covered entities including the College from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4.

The Justice Department complaint against the College charged that the College violated the ADA by discriminating against her on the basis of her disability by:

Removing her from the lab assistant work schedule for a semester and reducing her work hours and compensation to zero; and
Terminating her on the basis of her disability

As a consequence of these discriminatory actions, the complaint charged the former employee suffered lost earnings, benefits and job advancement opportunities, as well as substantial emotional distress, pain and suffering and other nonpecuniary losses. The complaint asked the District Court to redress these injuries by:

Declaring the College in violation of the Title I of the ADA and its accompanying regulation;
Enjoining the College and its agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in discriminatory employment policies and practices that violate Title I of the ADA;
Requiring the College to modify its policies, practices, and procedures as necessary to bring its employment practices into compliance with Title I of the ADA and its implementing regulation;
Ordering the College to train its supervisors and human resource staff regarding the requirements of Title I of the ADA; and
Awarding the former employee back pay with interest; the value of any lost benefits with interest; and compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress, for injuries suffered as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of the ADA;

Under the settlement agreement announced November 7, 2019 by the Justice Department, the College must pay the former employee $53,000 in back pay and compensatory damages, revise its policies and training staff on the ADA to ensure compliance with the ADA, train staff on the ADA, and report to the Justice Department on implementation of the settlement agreement.

Reaching this settlement allowed the College to eliminate its exposure to potentially much greater liability. In addition to actual lost compensation and benefit damages, a loss at trial could have resulted in a jury award that also ordered the College to pay attorneys’ fees and other costs, interest and exemplary damages of up to $300,000.

For More Information

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

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join 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 Compliance Update Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website..

About the Author

Author of numerous highly regarding publications on disability and other discrimination and other employment, employee benefit, compensation, regulatory compliance and internal controls and other management concerns affecting health care, education, insurance, housing and other operations, Ms. Stamer’s clients include health care, insurance and financial services, educational and other employer and services 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. In addition to her legal and management operations work. Ms. Stamer’s experience includes 30 plus years’ of legislative and regulatory policy advocacy and drafting, design, compliance and enforcement including testifying to the EBSA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans in on the effectiveness of employee benefit plan disclosures during 2017 hearings on on reducing the burdens and increasing the effectiveness of ERISA mandated disclosures as well as advice, representation, advocacy and testimony to and before and other work with various foreign governments, Congress, state legislatures, and a multitude of federal, state and local agencies.

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; manage labor-management relations, 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.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel and Past Chair of both the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and it’s RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer also has leading edge experience in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other plan, program and process design, administration, documentation, contracting, risk management, compliance and related process and systems development, policy and operations; training; legislative and regulatory affairs, and other legal and operational 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 work, 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.™

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 and its 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.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 College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS | Absenteeism, Academic Medicine, Accommodation, ADA, board of directors, compliance, Corporate Compliance, directors, Disability, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Education, Educational Privacy, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, FICA, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, Income Tax, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Payroll Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, Education, Emergency Medicine, Employees, higher education, MS, news, Paramedic, school, Training | 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.

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 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.™

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

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, 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.

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; audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; 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 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.™

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

2019 Mileage Rates Adjusted; Employee Unreimbursed Mileage & Relocation Mileage Deductions Unavailable In 2018 and 2019

March 20, 2019

Employers, employees and other taxpayers should use care to properly take into account recent changes in Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) rates and deduction rules reporting or when projecting, reporting or claiming mileage reimbursements or deductions for 2018 and 2019.

Employers, employees and other taxpayers should use care properly to take into account recent changes in the rates and rules for deducting mileage and business, charitable and medical mileage and other travel expenses under the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).

Historically, the Code has allowed individual taxpayers to claim deduct either actual expenses incurred or the applicable standard deduction for business, medical or charitable mileage and other travel expenses. While most employers, employees and other taxpayers understand the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) adjusts applicable standard mileage rates annually, many are unaware the recent tax law changes generally prohibit employees, but not certain other income earners, from claiming a mileage deduction for business mileage. Many employees or other individual taxpayers also do not realize that different deduction rates apply to businesses versus charitable and medical mileage expenses. Understanding these nuances is important to avoid making mistakes in projecting, reporting or deducting mileage expenses and reimbursements.

2019 Standard Mileage Deduction Rates

The Code generally allows a taxpayer to elect either to claim a deduction for substantiated actual mileage and other transportation expenses or or an amount computed using the applicable standard mileage rate declared by IRS for that taxable year under mileage reimbursement policy, whichever is greater from the gross total income. However, different applicable standard mileage rates apply to mileage for business, charitable, medical or moving expenses and the IRS adjusts each of these standard mileage rates annually.

Notice 2019-02 sets 2019 standard mileage rates for taxpayers to use in computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving expense purposes. The notice also provides the amount taxpayers must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate, and the maximum standard automobile cost that a taxpayer may use in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate plan. For 2019, the applicable standard mileage rates are as follows:

The standard mileage rate for transportation or travel expenses is 58 cents per mile for all miles of business use (business standard mileage rate);
The standard mileage rate is 14 cents per mile for use of an automobile in rendering gratuitous services to a charitable organization under § 170;
The standard mileage rate is 20 cents per mile for use of an automobile: (1) for medical care described in § 213; or (2) as part of a move for which the expenses are deductible under § 217(g).

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expense & Moving Expense Deduction Suspension

Even though the IRS has published standard mileage rates for use of an automobile for medical care or as part of a deductible move, most taxpayers incurring these expenses will not be able to claim any deduction for these expenses. While the Code historically allowed employees and other taxpayers to claim an itemized deduction for business, charitable or medical care related transportation expenses, Section 11045 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115-97, 131. Stat. 2054 (December 22, 2017) (the “Tax Act”) suspends the deductions of unreimbursed employee travel expenses and for relocation expenses for the 2018 through 2026 tax years. Specifically, the Tax Act amended the Code to prohibit employees from claiming unreimbursed employee travel and relocation mileage deductions for the 2018 through 2026 tax years. Historically, the Code allowed employees filing itemized tax returns to include unreimbursed employee transportation expenses among the itemized expenses deductible in excess of the two percent of their adjusted gross income. In connection with its expansion of the standard individual deductions, however, the Tax Act suspends all miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the two-percent of adjusted gross income floor under Code § 67, including unreimbursed employee travel expenses, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. In contrast, however, the Tax Act does not suspend the deduction in determining adjusted gross income of travel expenses or other expenses incurred in the production of income by independent contractors or other non-employee taxpayers. Since unreimbursed travel expenses of employees are subject to the adjusted gross income floor under Code § 67, employees cannot claim an itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses for 2018 or 2019. In contrast, the Tax Act did not suspend the deduction for expenses incurred in the production of income. Consequently, independent contractors and other non-employees still can deduct travel expenses as expenses incurred in connection with the production of income on line 24 of Schedule 1 of Form 1040 (2018), not as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040 (2018), using either their actual expenses or the annually applicable business standard mileage rate.

In addition, Section 11049 of the Tax Act also generally suspends the deduction for moving expenses for the 2018 through 2026 . However, this suspension does not apply to members of the Armed Forces on active duty who move pursuant to a military order and incident to a permanent change of station to whom § 217(g) applies. Thus, except for taxpayers to whom § 217(g) applies, the standard mileage rate for the use of an automobile as part of a move occurring during the suspension will not apply during the suspension period.

Proper calculation of applicable mileage related tax deduction depends upon taxpayers properly taking into account the suspension of the deductions for unreimbursed employee travel and relocation expenses for the 2018 through 2026 tax years and using the correct standard mileage rate. Employees impacted by these expenses should take into account these modifications when calculating and completing their tax withholding forms and projecting their tax liability. Because many employees may not be aware of these changes, employees with employees likely to be impacted by these changes may wish to alerting their employees to these changes. Employers that previously provided employee handbooks or other communications to employees containing explanations discussions of the implications of travel or relocation expenses inconsistent with the current tax rules also should take immediate steps to withdraw or correct those communications.

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, 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.

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; audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; 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 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.™

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 2019 Mileage Rates Adjusted; Employee Unreimbursed Mileage & Relocation Mileage Deductions Unavailable In 2018 and 2019 | compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, family leave, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, HR, Human Resources, Leave, Management, medical leave, Military Leave, veterans, VEVRAA | Tagged: Employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Human Resources, Mileage Deduction, Moving expenses, Relocation Expenses | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Risk FMLA Violation By Delaying FMLA Notification, Designation While Employees Use Other Leave

March 19, 2019

A new U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) opinion letter says warns employers not to delay providing FMLA notice or designating a leave as FMLA-covered when coordinating FMLA protected leave with otherwise available paid or unpaid leave.

FMLA Opinion 2019-1-A states that a FMLA-covered employer must designate as FMLA protected and, absent extenuating circumstances, must provide notice of the designation of the leave as FMLA protected within five business days of the date the employer has enough information to determine an employee has experienced a FMLA qualifying event. The Opinion says this designation and notice must happen even if the employee would prefer that the employer delay the designation of the absence as a FMLA protected leave until the employee exhausts other available leave.

According to WHD, its FMLA regulations require employers to provide a written “designation notice” to an employee within five business days—absent extenuating circumstances—after the employer “has enough information to determine whether the leave is being taken for a FMLA-qualifying reason.” Failure to provide timely notice requirement may constitute an interference with, restraint on, or denial of the exercise of an employee’s FMLA rights. 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.300(e), 825.301(e). Consequently, the Opinion concludes that the employer is responsible in all circumstances for designating leave as FMLA-qualifying and giving notice of the designation to the employee within five days of learning if events triggering the FMLA eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(d).

The Opinion also emphasizes that employers cannot delay the designation of a leave as FMLA protected and provision of notice while a FMLA-eligible employee uses otherwise available leave. While acknowledging that the FMLA permits an employer to require, or to permit an employee to elect, to “substitute” accrued paid leave (e.g., paid vacation, paid sick leave, etc.) to cover any part of the unpaid FMLA entitlement period,the Opinion states that “[t]he term substitute means that the paid leave provided by the employer … will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.207(a) (emphasis added). While acknowledging that the FMLA allows employers to adopt leave policies more generous than those required by the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2653; see 29 C.F.R. § 825.700, the Opinion also says an employer may not designate more than 12 weeks of leave—or more than 26 weeks of military caregiver leave—as FMLA-protected. See, e.g., Weidner v. Unity Health Plans Ins. Corp., 606 F. Supp. 2d 949, 956 (W.D. Wis. 2009) (citing cases for the principle that “a plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action under the FMLA for an employer’s violation of its more-generous leave policy”).

Furthermore, the Opinion also openly rejects and disagrees with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1244 (9th Cir. 2014) that an employee may use non-FMLA leave for an FMLA-qualifying reason and decline to use FMLA leave in order to preserve FMLA leave for future use. Instead, the Opinion adopts the position that once an eligible employee communicates a need to take leave for an FMLA-qualifying reason, neither the employee nor the employer may decline FMLA protection for that leave. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) (“Employees cannot waive, nor may employers induce employees to waive, their prospective rights under FMLA.”); Strickland v. Water Works and Sewer Bd. of City of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that the employer may not “choose whether an employee’s FMLA-qualifying absence” is protected or unprotected by the FMLA). Accordingly, the Opinion concludes that when an employer determines that leave is for an FMLA-qualifying reason, the qualifying leave is FMLA-protected and counts toward the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement. Once the employer has enough information to make this determination, the employer must, absent extenuating circumstances, provide notice of the designation within five business days. Therefore, the employer may not delay designating leave as FMLA-qualifying or providing notification, even if the employee would prefer that the employer delay the designation.

The Opinion also clarifies the WHD’s interpretation of the FMLA limits the protection of the FMLA to the statutory period set by the FMLA. In this respect, the Opinion states, “An employer is also prohibited from designating more than 12 weeks of leave (or 26 weeks of military caregiver leave) as FMLA leave.” Thus, while acknowledging that “[a]n employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the FMLA.” under 29 C.F.R. § 825.700, the Opinion also states that “providing such additional leave outside of the FMLA cannot expand the employee’s 12-week (or 26-week) entitlement under the FMLA.” Therefore, the Opinion states that if an employee substitutes paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave, the employee’s paid leave counts toward his or her 12-week (or 26-week) FMLA entitlement and does not expand that entitlement.

As many employers currently coordinate and administer their FMLA and other leaves inconsistently with the positions stated in the Opinion, employers generally should consult with experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney client privilege about the implications of the guidance set forth in the Opinion on their existing practices and about whether any corrective action or modifications are advisable in light of the Opinion to minimize potential exposure to FMLA liability. In connection with this review, employers also generally will want to evaluate their other paid and unpaid military, medical, maternity/paternity, adoption and other absence and leave policies and associated employee benefit plans to confirm that these designs continue to operate as intended and that current coordination practices comport with existing guidance.

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, 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.

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; audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; 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 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.™

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 Employers Risk FMLA Violation By Delaying FMLA Notification, Designation While Employees Use Other Leave | compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, family leave, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Management, medical leave, Military Leave, veterans, VEVRAA | Tagged: department of labor, Disability Leave, Employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Family Leave, FMLA, Human Resources, medical leave, Military Leave, Wage and Hour division | 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

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.™

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.

©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 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

April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

January 10, 2018

Employer and sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers of employee benefitplansof any type covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) making any disability based determinations now have until April 1, 2018 to bring their plans’ claims and appeals procedures for disability-based decisions and related notices and communications into compliance with substantially more complicated requirements in new Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) regulations.

The EBSA announced on January 5, 2018 the extension of the effective date of new requirements for benefit plan processing and providing notification about claims or appeals involving disability determinations from their originally scheduled effective date of January 1, 2018 to April 1, 2018.

While the extension gives employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers of employee benefit plans making disability-based benefit determinations a few extra months to review and update their plan documents, summary plan descriptions, procedures, processes and claims and appeals notices to meet tightened new federal rules on disability-based benefit determinations applicable to all post December 31, 2017 claims under the restated Final Rule on Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits (“Disability Claims Rule”), the nature and scope of these new requirements will require updates to virtually all ERISA-covered benefit plans with any disability dependent provisions. These updates are likely to include changes to plan documents, summary plan descriptions, notices, contracts, processes and procedures for a broad range of plans. Consequently, employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and others responsible for any benefit plan not already reviewed and updated to comply should get moving to complete the necessary review and update to meet the April 1, 2018 deadline.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and others will lead a free telephone study group discussion of “Claims Regulations and Other Developments Affecting Plan Fiduciaries” on January 26, 2018 beginning at 1 PM (Eastern), Noon (Central), 11 AM (Mountain), and 10 AM (Pacific). For more details about the Study Group, see here.

New Disability Claims Rule Overview

Originally published in final form by the EBSA on December 16, 2016, the Disability Claims Rule generally require all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans making any disability benefit or other determination conditioned upon a finding of disability to comply with the new Disability Claims Rule for any claim received after March 31, 2018.

Based on EBSA’s previously adopted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) group health plan claims and appeals rules, the new Final Disability Claims Rule will apply to all disability determinations made under any ERISA-covered plan after March 31, 2018, regardless of how the plan characterizes the benefit or whether the plan is a health or other welfare, pension, 401(k) plan or other savings plan.

The new Disability Claims Rule will apply to a broad range of plans, most of which historically have not followed the detailed claims and appeals notification, independent and impartial decision-making, rescission, deemed exhaustion, “culturally and linguistically appropriate” and other procedural protections and safeguards that the Disability Claims Rule extends from the current group health plan rules to all ERISA-covered plans making benefit determinations based on disability. Consequently covered plans making disability-based benefit or other covered determinations are likely to require updates to plan documents, insurance or administrative services contracts, summary plan descriptions and other plan communications, claims and appeals notices, and other related processes, procedures and documentation to meet these new requirements. Since certain requirements of the Disability Claims Rules like the summary plan description advance disclosure requirements are required to be provided before the claim is received, plans and their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators risk being accused of violating these requirements by waiting to update plans, their processes and materials until after claim involving a disability based determination arises.

Ensuring that impacted plans are updated before the April 1, 2018 deadline is important because the Disability Claims Rule, like the group health plan claims and appeals rules upon which it is based, also states that noncompliance with any of its requirements empowers a participant to immediately sue the plan for enforcement if his rights without further complying the the plan’s administrative procedures. Moreover, failing to comply with summary plan disclosure or claims or appeal adverse benefit determination notification requirements also may subject the plan administrator to administrative penalties under ERISA section 514(c); fiduciaries to ERISA fiduciary liability, and compromise the ability to defend otherwise defensible decisions. Consequently, employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers will want to act quickly to ensure that their plans, their summary plan descriptions and other communications, notices, processes, contracts and procedures are updated appropriately before April 1, 218.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26 | 401(k), ACA, Accommodation, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability Plans, Disease Management, Drug & Alcohol, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, Executive Compensation, family leave, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Benefits, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, medical leave, Mental Health, Patient Empowerment, pension plan, Prescription Drugs, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Confirm Your Benefit Plans Ready For New Disability Determination Rules on 1/1/18

December 14, 2017

Employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-covered employee benefit plans making disability-based benefit determinations should confirm that their plan documents, summary plan descriptions, procedures and claims and appeals notices are updated and ready to meet tightened new federal rules on disability-based benefit determinations applicable to all post December 31, 2017 claims under the restated Final Rule on Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits (“Disability Claims Rule”). Given the nature and scope of these new requirements, most covered plans will require specific action be taken before the new rules take effect to update plan documents, summary plan descriptions, notices, contracts, processes and procedures to meet the January 1, 2018 deadline.

The Disability Claims Rule published by the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) on December 19, 2016 generally require all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans making any disability benefit or other determination conditioned upon a finding of disability to comply with the new Disability Claims Rule for any claim received after December 31, 2017.

The new Final Disability Claims Rule will apply to all disability determinations made under any ERISA-covered plan after December 31, 2017, regardless of how the plan characterizes the benefit or whether the plan is a health or other welfare, pension, 401(k) plan or other savings plan.

Significant affirmative action is likely required to prepare covered plans to meet these requirements since most plans historically have not followed the detailed claims and appeals notification, independent and impartial decision-making, rescission, deemed exhaustion, “culturally and linguistically appropriate” and other procedural protections and safeguards based on EBSA’s previously adopted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) group health plan claims and appeals rules, which the Disability Claims Rules extend and make applicable to all ERISA-covered plans making benefit determinations based on disability. Covered plans making disability-based benefit or other covered determinations are likely to require updates to plan documents, insurance or administrative services contracts, summary plan descriptions and other plan communications, claims and appeals notices, and other related processes, procedures and documentation to meet these new requirements. Since certain requirements of the Disability Claims Rules like the summary plan description advance disclosure requirements are required to be provided before the claim is received, plans and their sponsors risk being accused of violating these requirements by waiting to update plans, their processes and materials until after claim involving a disability based determination arises.

Ensuring that impacted plans are updated before the January 1, 2018 deadline is important because the Disability Claims Rule, like the group health plan claims and appeals rules upon which it is based, also states that noncompliance with any of its requirements empowers a participant to immediately sue the plan for enforcement if his rights without further complying the the plan’s administrative procedures. Moreover, failing to comply with summary plan disclosure or claims or appeal adverse benefit determination notification requirements also may subject the plan administrator to administrative penalties under ERISA section 514(c). Consequently, employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers will want to act quickly to ensure that their plans, their summary plan descriptions and other communications, notices, processes, contracts and procedures are updated appropriately before January 1, 2018.

About The Author

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

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

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

©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 Confirm Your Benefit Plans Ready For New Disability Determination Rules on 1/1/18 | 401(k), ACA, ADA, Affordable Care Act, Appeals, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Drug & Alcohol, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, Executive Compensation, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health insurance, Leave, Management, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Obamacare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay, pension plan, Plan Admistrator, Professional Liability, third party administrators, Uncategorized, Union, Worker | Tagged: Appeals, Claims, defined benefit plan, Disability, Disability Insurance, Disability Plan, EBSA, Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, pension plan | 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.

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.™

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

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

Obama Offers Grants To States To Boost Paid Leave Availability With State Grants

May 6, 2016

Employers concerned about Obama Administration efforts to expand existing unpaid family and medical leave requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act to require paid family and medical leave also need to watch out for expanding state paid leave mandates as well as the much more widely recognized efforts by President Obama to impose federal paid leave requirements on employers.

Currently, the unpaid family and medical leave mandates of the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) applicable to employers with 50 or more employees primarily define the obligation of private sector employers to provide family or medical leave.

As part of the Obama’s Administration’s efforts to fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise to expand the availability of paid family and medical leave before President Obama leaves office in January, 2016 in the face of continuing Congressional roadblocks to its efforts to enact a federal paid leave mandate, the Obama Administration is offering grants to help states develop paid family and medical leave laws and programs in their states.

On May 5. 2016, Department of Labor Secretary Thomas Perez announced the Department’s Woman’s Bureau is making available $1 million in grant funds for use in helping states, U.S. territories and possessions, counties and cities with at least 50,000 residents, and federally recognized Indian/Native American tribes with a population of at least 10,000 to fund the cost of developing and implementing paid family and medical leave programs at a roundtable discussion hosted to promote the Administration’s paid family and medical leave agenda with Nestlé, Spotify, and certain other employers.

The third year that the Department has offered such grants, the 2016 grant requirements and procedures are set forth in Woman’s Bureau Funding Opportunity Announcement. In furtherance of its efforts to promote interest by qualified government or other entities, the Labor Department also has announced that the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, along with the Women’s Bureau, will host a Prospective Applicant WebEx webinar on Thursday, May 12, at 2:00 p.m. EDT to provide interested entities with an opportunity to ask questions about the grant opportunity during the webinar. Interested prospective applicants must register for the webinar in advance here.

Alongside monitoring emerging proposals to enact federal or state paid leave legislation, employers and others concerned with paid leave mandates also need to keep a close eye on the actions that President Obama and government agencies take to require paid leave through executive action, government contracting mandates or other non-legislative efforts. President Obama already has used his executive powers to expand paid family and medical leave rights for federal government workers, to add paid leave mandates to federal contracting regulations and contracts applicable to government contractors, and otherwise

Even for the millions of employers that already voluntarily provide paid leave, the enactment of additional federal or state paid leave mandates inevitability will limit employer flexibility to structure its compensation and other leave and staffing as well as substantially increase the financial, regulatory and other obligations and risks of employers. For this reason, employers and others concerned about potential adverse effects of becoming subject to new or expanded paid family, medical or other leave requirements should carefully monitor both federal and state legislative and regulatory enforcement proposals and other activities, take into account these developments in their short and long range human resources budget, compensation and other business and human resources planning, and provide feedback and input to federal and state legislators and regulators about existing and proposed leave mandates. As part of their efforts to monitor and respond to state law developments, employers and others interested in more information about the Funding Opportunity Announcement can learn more here.

About The Author

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer’s more than 28 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, recognized 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.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 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.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer helps management manage. 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.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized 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. In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, 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 plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others. Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation, Ms. Stamer also advises and represents clients on OCR and other HHS, Department of Labor, IRS, FTC, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs 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.

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.

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.

Beyond these involvements, 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 here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by email here or by telephone 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 may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Comments Off on Obama Offers Grants To States To Boost Paid Leave Availability With State Grants | Employer, Employers, family leave, FMLA, Human Resources, medical leave, Uncategorized | Tagged: business, Employee, Employer, Family & Medical Leave Act, FMLA, Paid Leave, PTO, Time Off | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

State Exchange Problems Present ACA Concerns That Exist Beyond King v. Burwell

March 3, 2015

While most Americans are familiar with the well-publicized issues and higher than projected premium costs of coverage offered to Americans enrolling in health care coverage through the federal healthcare marketplace Healthcare.gov created under the health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), many Americans are just beginning to recognize the growing problems and concerns emerging with state exchanges in those states that elected to enact their own exchange. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the challenge to the payment of ACA subsidies to individuals in states that elected not to adopt a state-run health care exchange to pay for coverage purchased through the federal healthcare.gov marketplace in King v. Burwell on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, the growing evidence of rapidly emerging funding and other challenges affecting state-run exchanges raise concerns about the solvency and reliability of coverage promised and purchased through those state-run exchanges.

During the Congressional debates leading up to the enactment of ACA, for instance, ACA advocates touted the Massachusetts health care mandates and reform law of Massachusetts as part of the model for ACA and evidence of the potential benefits offered by enactment of ACA. Now Massachusetts officials are blaming ACA for serious underfunding and other problems in their state’s health care connector.

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker recently cited the Health Connector and its challenges in enrolling Massachusetts residents in health insurance plans as part of the Affordable Care Act that forced the state to temporarily transition hundreds of thousands of state residents into the commonwealth’s Medicaid program as a primary reason for the state’s projected $1.5 billion budget deficit. He now has asked for the resignations of four Massachusetts Health Connector board members: MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, Covered California actuarial consultant John Bertko; Massachusetts Nonprofit Network CEO Rick Jakious and Spring Insurance Group CEO George Conser.

The Massachusetts experience is not unique. Other states also are experiencing significant funding and other problems dealing with the ACA mandates and implementation. See, e.g., Funding Woes Imperil Future of State Run Exchanges; State Insurance Exchanges Face Challenges In Offering Standardized Choices Alongside Innovative Value-Based Insurance.

This mounting evidence of serious cost, financing and other concerns in state-run exchanges creates new reason for concern about the future of ACA’s health care reforms even for those citizens of states whose eligibility for subsidies is not challenged by the King v. Burwell Supreme Court challenge. These and other budget overruns and operational challenges raise serious questions about the ability of the federal government or the states to fund the promises currently made by ACA in its present form. Congress and state governments almost certainly will be forced to deal with these broader challenges regardless of the outcome of King v. Burwell. As American leaders continue to struggle to deal with these and other mounting problems impacting the U.S. health care system, the input of individual Americans and businesses and community leaders is more critical than ever. Get involved in helping to shape improvements and solutions to the U.S. health care system and the Americans it cares for by sharing your ideas and input through the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy and exchanging information and ideas for helping American families deal with their family member’s illnesses, disabilities and other healthcare challenges through Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

Do you have ideas or experiences to share about medical debit, ACA or other health care challenges? Have ideas for helping improve ACA and other health care policies impacting the US health care system, helping Americans cope with these and other health care challenges or other health care matters? Know other helpful resources or experiences that you are willing to share? Are you concerned about health care coverage or other health care and disability issues or policy concerns? Join the discussion and share your input by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of

The Coalition and its Project COPE arise and operate on the belief that health care reform and policy must be patient focused, patient centric and patient empowering. The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act makes financing care better or worse, the same challenges exist. The real meaning of the enacted reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Americans individually and collectively clearly should monitor and continue to provide input through this critical time to help shape constructive rather than obstructive policy. Regardless of how the policy ultimately evolves, however, Americans, American businesses, and American communities still will need to roll up their sleeves and work to deal with the realities of dealing with ill, aging and disabled people and their families. While the reimbursement and coverage map will change and new government mandates will confine providers, payers and patients, the practical needs and challenges of patients and families will be the same and confusion about the new configuration will create new challenges as patients, providers and payers work through the changes.

We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

You also may be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here such as:

You also can find out about how you can arrange for training for you, your employees or other communities to participate in training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

Should your business need legal advice about the taxability of or other requirements on tips, gratuities or other compensation, assistance assessing or resolving potential past or existing compliance exposures, or monitoring and responding to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, an ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits Council representative, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, ABA, and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years’ experience advising health plan and employee benefit, insurance, financial services, employer and health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health plans and insurers about ACA, and a wide range of other plan design, administration, data security and privacy and other compliance risk management policies. Ms. Stamer also regularly represents clients and works with Congress and state legislatures, EBSA, IRS, EEOC, OCR and other HHS agencies, state insurance and other regulators, and others. She also publishes and speaks extensively on health and other employee benefit plan and insurance, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, privacy, regulatory and public policy and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, 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 review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:

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 about this communication click here.

NOTE: This article is provided for educational purposes. It is does not establish any attorney-client relationship nor provide or serve as a substitute for legal advice to any individual or organization. Readers must engage properly qualified legal counsel to secure legal advice about the rules discussed in light of specific circumstances.

The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. The Regulations now require that either we (1) include the following disclaimer in most written Federal tax correspondence or (2) undertake significant due diligence that we have not performed (but can perform on request).

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 State Exchange Problems Present ACA Concerns That Exist Beyond King v. Burwell | ADA, Affirmative Action, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, family leave, FMLA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Leave, Risk Management, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employers, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, King v. Burwell, Patient Empowerment, subsidies | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Charges Employer Violated ADA By Terminating Employment At FMLA Leave End

March 2, 2015

Employers considering terminating the employment of employees not ready to resume their usual duties when their eligibility for medical leave ends under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave policies should first consider whether the employee qualifies for accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act. That’s the message transmitted by a new Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit against ValleyLife of Phoenix, Arizona.

In EEOC v. ValleyLife, the EEOC charges that ValleyLife engaged in illegal disability discrimination in violation of the ADA when it allegedly fired employees with disabilities instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations when their eligibility for family leave ended under the FMLA and allegedly failed to keep employees’ medical records confidential. See EEOC v. ValleyLife, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00340-GMS (N.Az).

According to the lawsuit, ValleyLife fired employees with disabilities rather than provide them with reasonable accommodations due to its inflexible leave policy. The policy compelled the termination of employees who had exhausted their paid time off and/or any unpaid leave to which they were eligible under the FMLA. In its complaint, for instance, the EEOC alleges that ValleyLife fired supervisor, Glenn Stephens, due to his need for further surgery when his FMLA leave was exhausted. EEOC claims this termination violated the ADA because ValleyLife did not engage in any interactive process to determine whether any accommodations (including additional leave) were possible. Stephens had worked for ValleyLife for over ten years at the time of his termination. The EEOC contends that ValleyLife’s failure to offer extended leave or other accommodation to Stephens when his leave eligibility ended violated the ADA, which protects workers from discrimination based upon disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental impairments of disabled employees unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.

The suit also alleges that ValleyLife commingled medical records in employee personnel files and failed to maintain these medical records confidential in violation of the medical record confidentiality requirements of the ADA, which requires employees’ to keep medical documents confidential and separate from other personnel records.

The lawsuit seeks lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged victims, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent discriminatory practices in the future.

Prepare Employment Discrimination Defenses

The EEOC suit against ValleyLife sends a message to employers of the need to use care to monitor and manage ADA and other disability discrimination risks at the end of a FMLA or other medical leave. Employers assume at their own peril that their responsibility to an employee ends when an employee is unable to or fails to return to work following a FMLA or other medical leave. Instead, the employer should evaluate whether the affected employee qualifies as disabled under the ADA and if so, whether the employer has any responsibility to offer the employee an extended leave or other accommodations before terminating the employee.

Employers also should consider reviewing and updating their current FMLA and other leave policies and communications to incorporate appropriate accommodation offer and administration procedures and notices, as well as other processes to ensure that these practices are operationalized in a manner to create and keep appropriate documentation to defend staffing decisions against potential claims of illegal discrimination under the ADA, Civil Rights, or other laws that could trigger ADA or other discrimination charges. Employers should keep in mind that an evidentiary doctrine known as the “after acquired evidence rule” makes it important to properly document analysis and decision-making before an employment action is taken to help ensure that critical evidence of employer intention necessary to defend discrimination claims will not be excluded or compromised in the event of litigation.

For Advice, Training & Other Resources

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 about this communication click here.

Comments Off on EEOC Charges Employer Violated ADA By Terminating Employment At FMLA Leave End | ADA, Affirmative Action, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, family leave, FMLA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Leave, Risk Management | Tagged: civil rights, EEOC, FMLA, Health Care, HHS, Hospital, Medicare Terms of Participation, OCR, Race Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Report Pressures EBSA To Finalize ERISA Fiduciary Investment Advice Rule & Repeal or Restrict Small Scope Audit Rule

December 3, 2014

Employee benefit plan sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries and the banks, insurers and other service providers involved in the investment or management of plan assets that currently rely upon existing Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) limited scope audit regulations to avoid the expense and other burdens of conducting full scale audits of certain employee benefit plan assets held by banks, insurers and certain other regulated entities should watch for EBSA proposals to repeal or tighten these regulations in response to recommendations in a new report published by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) . If adopted by the EBSA, plans sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries could expect to incur significant increases in the annual audit expenses of their employee benefit plans, banks, insurers and other organizations currently covered by the small scope audit exception could expect greater scrutiny and expenses when dealing with employee benefit plan accounts, and all of these parties could expect greater fiduciary risk and other compliance obligations.

Repealing or tightening the EBSA limited scope audit regulations and finalizing proposed conflict of interest rules are two key recommendations that OIG urges EBSA to adopt to strengthen its ability to fulfill its mission to protect the security of retirement, health, and other private‐sector employer‐sponsored benefit plans for America’s workers, retirees, and their families in the Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor report (Report) just released by the OIG.

While ERISA generally requires plan asset audits on most employee benefit plan assets, the small scope audit rule of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) currently authorizes so‐called “limited scope audits” for plan assets held in certain banks, insurance companies and certain other qualifying entities under the presumption that these organizations and their actions with respect to the assets are being audited by other entities for other purposes. As a result, the independent public accountants that conduct their audits express “no opinion” on the financial statements of the assets they hold on behalf of plans.

According to the OIG Report, this small scope audit rule inappropriately challenges EBSA’s oversight efforts by allowing as much as $3.3 billion in pension assets held in otherwise regulated entities, such as banks to “escape audit scrutiny.” The Report states, “These limited scope audits weaken assurances to stakeholders and may put retirement plan assets at risk because they provide little or no confirmation regarding the existence or value of plan assets.

In addition to attacking the small scope audit rule, OIG also urges EBSA to finalize its long awaited rules defining prohibited conflicts of interest for parties and individuals providing investment advice to employee benefit plans that EBSA has been working on since 2010. The so‐called “conflict of interest ‐‐ fiduciary investment advice rule” would broaden the definition of investment advice fiduciary for ERISA plans and individual retirement accounts to try to reduce the opportunities for financial conflicts of interest to compromise the impartiality of investment advice in the retirement savings marketplace.

Accordingly, the OIG Report concludes that EBSA should “concentrate on issuing final regulations on the so‐called “conflict of interest rule” and continue its work to obtain legislative changes repealing the limited‐scope audit exemption. In the interim, EBSA should continue to expand upon its existing authority to clarify and strengthen limited scope audit regulations and evaluate the ERISA Council’s recommendations on the issue.”

The OIG recommendations in the Report are likely to refuel pressure on EBSA to finalize the fiduciary investment advice rule and tighten or eliminate the small scope audit rule. Since either or both of these actions would likely increase the expense and other responsibilities and risks associated with the investment and maintenance of employee benefit plan assets, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, banks, insurers, investment advisors and others involved in the investment or administration of employee benefit plans and their assets should both carefully monitor the response of the EBSA to the OIG recommendations and react promptly to provide feedback to help shape any changes to manage these costs and expenses.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

If you need help evaluating or monitoring the implications of these developments or reviewing or updating your health benefit program for compliance or with any other employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls matter, please contact the author of this article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, immediate past-Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPPT Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plan Committee Vice Chair, former ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, past Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Employee Benefit News Editorial Advisory Board Member, and a widely published speaker and author, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising businesses, plans, fiduciaries, insurers. plan administrators and other services providers, and governments on health care, retirement, employment, insurance, and tax program design, administration, defense and policy. Nationally and internationally known for her creative and highly pragmatic knowledge and work on health benefit and insurance programs, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive involvement in advising and representing these and other clients on ACA and other health care legislation, regulation, enforcement and administration.

Widely published on health benefit and other related matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights and articles have been published by the HealthLeaders, Modern Health Care, Managed Care Executive, the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Wall Street Journal, the American Bar Association, Aspen Publishers, World At Work, Spencer Publications, SHRM, the International Foundation, Solutions Law Press and many others.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

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

For Help Or More Information

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on OIG Report Pressures EBSA To Finalize ERISA Fiduciary Investment Advice Rule & Repeal or Restrict Small Scope Audit Rule | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: audit, conflict of interest, Employee Plans, ERISA, Exempt Organizations, fiduciary investment rule, Fiduciary Responsibility, IRA, IRS, plan audit, Qualification, Retirement Plans, small scope audit, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

TEGE Counsel To Assume Responsibility For Employee Plans, Exempt Orgs & IRA Technical Guidance in 2015

December 3, 2014

The Department of Treasury announced today the transfer of technical responsibility for certain tax related technical issues involving exempt organizations, qualified retirement plans, and individual retirement annuities and accounts (IRAs) to the Office of Chief Counsel. The reassignment of duties scheduled for formal publication in Announcement 2014-34 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-51 on Dec. 15, 2014.will happen as part of a realignment of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE). As a result of the realignment occurring at the beginning of 2015, the technical responsibility for preparing revenue rulings, revenue procedures, and certain other forms of published guidance, and issuing technical advice and certain letter rulings, will shift from TE/GE to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities) (TEGE Counsel). The annual revenue procedures addressing these matters will be updated in January of 2015 to reflect this realignment.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

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

For Help Or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on TEGE Counsel To Assume Responsibility For Employee Plans, Exempt Orgs & IRA Technical Guidance in 2015 | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Employee Plans, Exempt Organizations, IRA, IRS, Qualification, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Private Exchanges: Employer Health Program Panacea or Problem? Consider Carefully!

November 20, 2014

Employers trying to continue offering affordable health and welfare benefits amid the expanding costs and regulations enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) often are encouraged by some consultants and brokers to consider offering coverage options pursuant to a “private exchange” offering employees the options to get reimbursement for individual health coverage from a health reimbursement account (HRA) (collectively the “agencies”) or other choice optand cions.

While these options sound attractive, not all of these options work for all employers. The consumer driven health care and other private exchange lingo used to describe these arrangements often means different things to different people. Some “private exchanges” are little more than high-tech online cafeteria enrollment arrangements. See, e.g. A ‘Cynical’ Look at Private Exchanges Employers need to carefully scrutinize these proposals both for their compliance and other legal risks, affordability and cost, and other suitability.

When considering a private exchange or other arrangement, it is important to understand clearly the proposal, its design, operation, participating vendors, the charges, what is excluded or costs extra, and who is responsible for delivering what. Assuming an employer views the cost and operations merit considering the option, it also needs to carefully evaluate the legal compliance and risks of the arrangements.

The agencies have issued a long stream of guidance cautioning employers about the use of arrangements where the employer provides pre- or after-tax dollars to pay for or reimburse premiums for individual policies, and employers from paying or reimbursing employees for the cost of enrolling in coverage under a public health insurance exchange or both. See, e.g., DOL Technical Release 2013-03; IRS Notice 2013-54; Insurance Standards Bulletin, Application of Affordable Care Act Provisions to Certain Healthcare Arrangement; IRS May 13, 2014 FAQs available here. Most recently, for instance, the new FAQS About Affordable Care Act Implementation (XXII) (FAQ XXII) published by the agencies on November 6, 2014 reiterates previous agency guidance indicating that tax basis for purchasing individual coverage in lieu of group health plan coverage. FAQ XXII, among other things, states

HRAS, health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and certain other employer and union health care arrangements where the employer promises to reimburse health care costs: are considered group health plans subject to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) § 2711 annual limits, PHS Act § 2713 preventive care with no cost-sharing and other group market reform provisions of PHS Act §§ 2711-2719 and incorporated by reference into the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) but
HRA or other premium reimbursement arrangements do not violate these market reform provisions when integrated with a group health plan that complies with such provisions. However, an employer health care arrangement cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms. Consequently, such an arrangement may be subject to penalties, including excise taxes under section 4980D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

FAQ XXII reaffirms and reinforces this prior guidance, stating “Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments’ prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.”

Another potential arises under the various tax and non-discrimination rules of the Code and other federal laws. For instance, Code sections 105, 125 and other Code provisions prohibitions against discrimination in favor of highly compensated or key employees could arise based on the availability of options or enrollment participation. Historically many have assumed that these concerns could be managed by treating the premiums or value of discriminatory coverage as provided after-tax for highly compensated or key employees. However IRS and Treasury leaders over the past year have made statements in various public meetings suggesting that the IRS does not view this as a solution. Of course, FAQ XXII also highlights the potential risks of underwriting or other practices of offering individual or other coverage in a manner that discriminates against disabled, elderly or other employees protected against federal employment discrimination, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans or other federal employment or related laws.

In addition to confirming that the arrangement itself doesn’t violate specific Code or other requirements, employers and others responsible for structuring these arrangements also should exercise care to critically evaluate and document their analysis that the options offered are suitable. Like other employee benefit arrangements, ERISA generally requires that individual or group products offered by employers, unions or both be prudently selected and managed. Employers sponsoring or considering sponsoring these arrangements should expect that the DOL will expect that each product or benefit option offered be prudently selected in accordance with ERISA’s rules. Compensation arrangements for the brokers and consultants offering these arrangements also should be reviewed for prudence, as well as to ensure that the arrangements don’t violate ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules. Eligibility and other enrollment and related administrative systems and information sharing also should be critically evaluated under ERISA, as well as to manage exposures under the privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance & Portability Act (HIPAA) and other laws.

As a part of this analysis, employers and others contemplating involvement in these arrangements also will want to critically review the vendor contracts and operating systems of the vendors that will participate in the program both for legal compliance, prudence for inclusion, prohibited transactions, and other legal compliance, as well as to ensure that the contract by its terms holds the vendor responsible for delivering on service and other expectations created in the sales pitch. In reviewing the contract, special attention should be given to fiduciary allocations, indemnification and standards of performance, business associate or other privacy and data security assurances required to comply with HIPAA and other confidentiality and data security requirements and the like. As HHS discovered with the rollout of the Healthcare.gov exchange, unctionality also plays a big role in the value proposition justified, the contractual commitments from the vendor also should cover expected operational performance and reliability as well as legal compliance and risk management.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Added Information and Other Resources

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

For Help Or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Private Exchanges: Employer Health Program Panacea or Problem? Consider Carefully! | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Reporting & Disclosure, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Administrative Simplification, CMS, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health insurers, Health Plans, HHS, HPID, HPOES, out-of-pocket maximum, TPAs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

November 10, 2014

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

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

About The Program

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

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

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

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

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

About Ms. Stamer

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

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

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

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

For Added Information and Other Resources

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

For Help Or More Information

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Affordable Care Act Requires Proper Integration of HRAs, HFSAs, & Certain Other Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

September 24, 2013

Employers using health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health flexible spending plans (HFSAs) or other employer payment plan arrangements under which the employer provides a fixed defined contribution from the employer to employees to use to purchase individual or group health insurance should have those arrangements reviewed for compliance with the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) annual limit and preventive care rules as interpreted by the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health & Human Service.

The Internal Revenue Service and the Employee Benefit Security Administration construe ACA as requiring that these arrangements be properly integrated with health insurance coverage that otherwise complies with the Affordable Care Act’s annual limit and preventive care rules to avoid violating ACA in recent guidance published in IRS Notice 2013-54 and EBSA Technical Release No. 2013-04.

Employers that use HRAs, HFSAs, or other employer defined contribution style arrangements to reimburse employees for individual or group insurance coverage should review their arrangements to ensure that they are properly designed to comply with ACA’s annual limit, preventive care and other mandates.

For Help or More Information

If you need help understanding or dealing with these impending notification requirements, with other 2014 health plan decision-making or preparation, or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, HR.com, Insurance Thought Leadership, Solutions Law Press, Inc. and other publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

For important information about 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 Affordable Care Act Requires Proper Integration of HRAs, HFSAs, & Certain Other Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, DOMA, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, FMLA, Health Plans, Model NOtices, same-sex marriage, Section 18B, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Review Benefit Plan, FLMA & Other Family-Related Policies In Light Of Labor Department Same-Sex Marriage Guidance

September 24, 2013

Employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plan fiduciaries, and their advisors and service providers should review and update their health and employee benefit plan’s definitions of “spouse,” “marriage” and “dependent” in light of new guidance from the Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD) guidance under the Family & Medical Leave Act and the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) guidance under the under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on the effect of the Supreme Court’s finding of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on their family leave and employee benefit plan obligations to employees involved in same-sex domestic partnership relationships. When doing so, employers and employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators also should keep in mind that the Defense of Marriage Act ruling is only one of a number of recent developments fueling an evolution in the traditional concepts of marriage, dependent and family and their effect on employment and employee benefit policies and practices. Accordingly, when reviewing these arrangements, employers and their benefit plans need to be reviewed and updated to keep abreast of and comply with these evolving practices and standards.

On June 26, 2013, the Windsor decision struck down the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples.

In Technical Release No. 2013-04 published on September 18, 2013, the EBSA states the Department plans to issue additional guidance in the coming months as it consults with the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to implement the Winsor decision. In the meanwhile, however, EBSA says that in general, the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in Title I of ERISA and in related department regulations should be read to include same-sex couples legally married in any state or foreign jurisdiction that recognizes such marriages, regardless of where they currently live.

The EBSA guidance follows the publication by the WHD of guidance on the effect of the Windsor decision on the family leave responsibilities of employers covered by the FMLA to employees involved in same-sex domestic partnership relationships in Fact Sheet #28F: Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act published by the WHD earlier in August. In that guidance, WHD updated its definition of “spouse” for purposes of the FMLA to mean “husband or wife as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the state where the employee resides, including “common law” marriage and same-sex marriage.”

The Windsor decision and these new pieces of related guidance reflect the evolving nature of marriage and family increasingly incorporated into federal and state employment and employee benefit law. While the Labor Department promises that additional guidance on the Defense of Marriage Act will be forthcoming the future, the new guidance makes clear that employers should review their existing employment and employee benefit plans in light of the Windsor decision and evolving precedent. Employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators should not assume that existing definitions will have the intended effect or be compliant. Rather, they should assess the existing language in light of the decision and the evolving guidance and make appropriate adjustments as necessary to ensure that their plans properly document the desired treatment in accordance with the evolving guidance and precedent. In doing so, employers also should review other definitions of dependent, kin, family and related concepts to ensure they are up to date with the FMLA, the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act-related guidance and other current regulations.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this of interest, you may also be interested in the following recent publications by Ms. Stamer published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.:

Comments Off on Review Benefit Plan, FLMA & Other Family-Related Policies In Light Of Labor Department Same-Sex Marriage Guidance | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, DOMA, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Exchange Notice, FMLA, Health Plans, Model NOtices, same-sex marriage, Section 18B, Windsor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Witholding Calculator Can Help Avoid Over & Underwithholding

April 21, 2013

If you have employees that had too much or too little tax taken out of their paychecks, refer them to this new YouTube video about using the IRS withholding calculator at inbox:body:0000000001510000020000000800000000000000:Read#Third.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other legal challenges to your organization’s labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigrations & Customs, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on worker classification and related human resources, employee benefit, internal controls and risk management matters.

A featured presenter in the recent “Worker Classification & Alternative Workforce: Employee Plans & Employment Tax Challenges” teleconference sponsored by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, find out about upcoming training or other events, review some of her past training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer at www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Solutions Law Press

For important information concerning this communication click 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 IRS Witholding Calculator Can Help Avoid Over & Underwithholding | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: contract labor, Determination Letters, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, plan qualification, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Administration Proposes To Let PBGC Board Set Premiums In Effort To Shore Up Finances

April 10, 2013

The Obama Administration again is proposing that the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) get the power to set premium rates based on the financial soundness of company sponsors to shore up the agency’s finances in hopes of heading off the need for a government bailout of the agency’s liabilities.

PBGC, which insures traditional pensions offered by non-governmental employers continues to struggle for funding to meet the costs of funding its program of insuring failed private defined benefit pension plans. Always challenging, maintaining financial solvency has become particularly problematic with company failures soaring and investment returns down in the ailing economy. On November 16, 2012, the agency said its deficit increased to $34 billion, the largest in PBGC’s 38-year history.

The PBGC currently relies exclusively on premiums set by Congress and assets recovered from failed plans to operate and fund its private pension guarantee obligations. It presently doesn’t receive taxpayer dollars. Premiums, set by Congress, have historically been too low to meet the agency’s needs.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report saying Congress should consider “revising PBGC’s premium structure to better reflect the agency’s risk from individual plans and sponsors

The proposal to give the PBGC authority to determine premiums is intended to shore up the agency’s funding. “Without premium increases PBGC will be faced with requesting a taxpayer bailout or shutting down,” said PBGC Director Josh Gotbaum. “The current system punishes responsible companies by making them pay for the mistakes of others and punishes plans by raising rates just when companies can least afford it. Tha’s why administrations of both parties, and recently GAO, have supported giving PBGC what the FDIC has long had — the ability to set its own rates and to set them in ways that are fair.”

The Administration originally introduced the idea of allowing the PBGC to set its own premiums in 2012. It now has reintroduced the effort that ties premiums to company risk in its 2014 budget. Under the current proposal, the PBGC Board, which consists of secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Treasury, with the secretary of Labor as chair, wouldn’t get the authority to set rates until 2015. The budget requires the board to perform a one-year study with a public comment period. Additionally, premium increases would be gradually phased in to give company sponsors time to prepare for the new rates.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need help dealing with pension or other employee benefit funding, design or administration challenges, dealing with the PBGC, IRS, Labor Department or other agency or legal challenge to your organization’s existing employee benefit or other practices, or other workforce re-engineering, labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients on human resources, employee benefit, internal controls and risk management matters including extensive work on workforce re-engineering and other human resources and employee benefits challenges of distressed and other companies, and related matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience worker classification and other employment, employee benefits and workforce matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Administration Proposes To Let PBGC Board Set Premiums In Effort To Shore Up Finances | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Bankruptcy, contract labor, defined benefit, Determination Letters, distressed, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, PBGC, Pension, Pension Funding, plan qualification, Reengineering, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Urged To Strengthen Their Worker Classification Defenses As IRS, Other Agencies Step Up Audits & Enforcement

March 10, 2013

Businesses using non-employee workers should heed the recently announced expansion of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Voluntary Classification VCS Program (VCS Program) as yet another warning to clean up their worker classification practices and defenses for all workers performing services for the business in any non-employee capacity.

Relying upon misclassifications of workers as nonemployed service providers presents many financial, legal and operational risks for businesses. When businesses treat workers as nonemployees who render services in such a way that makes the worker likely to qualify as a common law employee, the business runs the risk of overlooking or underestimating the costs and liabilities of employing those workers. The enforcement records of the U.S. Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division contains a lengthy and ever-lengthening record of businesses subjected to expensive backpay and penalty awards because the business failed to pay minimum wage or overtime to workers determined to qualify as common law employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See, e.g., Employers Should Tighten Worker Classification Practices As Obama Administration Moves To Stamp Out Misclassification Abuses; $1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices; Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Back Pay Settlement.

Originally announced on September 22, 2011 in Announcement 2011-64, the VCS Program as modified by Announcement 2012-45 continues to offer businesses a carrot to reclassify as employees workers misclassified for payroll tax purposes as independent contractors, leased employees or other non-employee workers backed by the enforcement stick of the IRS’ promise to zealously impose penalties and interest against employers caught wrongfully misclassifying workers. While the IRS’s VCS Program and stepped up audits of worker classification provide a strong incentive for business to address their worker classification risks, the IRS is only one of many agencies on the alert for worker misclassification exposures. Worker misclassification also impacts wage and hour, safety, immigration, worker’s compensation, employee benefits, negligence and a host of other obligations.

All of these exposures carry potentially costly compensation, interest, and civil and in some cases even criminal penalty exposures for the businesses and their leaders. Consequently, businesses should act prudently and promptly to identify and address all of these risks and move forward holistically to manage their misclassification exposures.

Agencies charged with enforcement of these other laws as well as private plaintiffs also are on the alert for and pursing businesses for aggressive misclassification of workers in these other exposure areas. Since most businesses uniformly classify workers as either employees or non-employees for most purposes, business leaders must understand and manage the full scope of their businesses’ misclassification exposures when charting and implementing their strategy in response to the VCS Program or another voluntary compliance program, responding to an audit or other agency action, addressing a private plaintiff suit or conducting other risk management and compliance activities impacting or affected by worker classification concerns.

VCS Program Offers Limited Worker Misclassification Exposure Relief

Worker misclassification impacts a broad range of tax and non-tax legal obligations and risks well beyond income tax withholding, payroll and other employment tax liability and reporting and disclosure. A worker classification challenge or necessity determination in one area inherently prompts the need to address the worker reclassification and attendant risks in other areas.

Health Care Reform To Increase Worker Classification Risks

Businesses can look forward to these risks rising in 2014, when the “pay or play” employer shared responsibility, health plan non-discrimination, default enrollment and other new rules take effect under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA). Given these new ACA requirements and the government’s need to get as many workers covered as employees to make them work, as well as existing laws, IRS and other agencies are expanding staffing and stepping up enforcement against businesses that misclassify workers.

Whether and how ACA’s “pay-or-play” employer shared responsibility payment, default enrollment, insured health plan non-discrimination and other federal health plan rules apply to a business’ health plan requires a correct understanding of what workers considered employed by the business and how these workers are counted and classified for purposes of ACA and other federal health plan mandates.

ACA and other federal health plan rules decide what rules apply to which businesses or health plans based on the number of employees a business is considered to employ, their hours worked, their seasonal or other status, and other relevant classification as determined by the applicable rule. The ACA and other rules vary in the relevant number of employees that trigger applicability of the rule and how businesses must count workers to decide when a particular rule applies. Consequently, trying to predict the employer shared responsibility payment, if any under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 4980H or model the burden or cost of any other federal health benefit mandates requires each business know who counts and how to classify workers for each of these rules. Most of these rules start with a “common law” definition of employee then apply rules to add or ignore various workers. Because most federal health plan rules also take into account “commonly controlled” and “affiliated” businesses’ employees when determining rule coverage, businesses also may need to know that information for other related or commonly owned businesses.

For instance, when a business along with all commonly controlled or affiliated employers, if any, employ a combined workforce of 50 or more “full-time” and “full-time equivalent employees” (Large Employer) does not offer “affordable,” “minimum essential coverage” to every full-time employee and his dependents under a legally compliant health plan that provides “minimum essential value” within the meaning of ACA after 2013, the business generally should expect to pay a shared responsibility payment under Code Section 4980H for each month after 2013 that any “full-time” employee receives a tax subsidy or credit for enrolling in one of ACA’s health care exchanges. The amount of this required shared responsibility payment will be calculated under Code Section 4980H based on the plan design and coverage the employer health plan offers and the required employee contribution for employee only coverage.

If the business intends to continue to offer health coverage, it similarly will need to accurately understand which workers count as its employees for purposes of determining who gets coverage and the consequences to the business for those workers that qualify as full-time, common law employees not offered coverage.

In either case, ACA uses the common law employee test as the basis for classification of workers both to determine what businesses have sufficient full-time employees to become covered under these rules, the payment, if any, required under Code Section 4980H’s new employer shared responsibility payment requirements, as well as the workers entitled to benefit from these rules under employer sponsored health plans. Accordingly, These the already significant legal and financial consequences for employers that misclassify workers will rise significantly when ACA gets fully implemented beginning in 2014.

Consider VCP Program Relief In Context Of Other Worker Classification Risks

As part of a broader effort to get businesses properly to classify and fulfill tax and other responsibilities to workers, the IRS is offering certain qualifying businesses an opportunity to resolve payroll liabilities arising from past worker misclassifications under the VCS Program. The VCS Program settlement opportunity emerged in 2011 as worker misclassification amid rising scrutiny and enforcement by the IRS and other agencies against businesses for misclassification related violations of the Code, wage and hour, safety, discrimination, immigration and various other laws.

Touted by the IRS as providing “greater certainty for employers, workers and the government,” the VCS Program offers businesses that meet the eligibility criteria for the program the option to resolve past payroll tax liability for the misclassified workers by paying a settlement payment of just over one percent of the wages paid to the reclassified workers for the past year and by meeting other program criteria. When a business meets the VCS Program requirements, the IRS promises not to conduct a payroll tax audit or assess interest or penalties against the business for unpaid payroll taxes for the previously misclassified workers covered by the VCS Program. For more detail, see New IRS Voluntary IRS Settlement Program Offers New Option For Resolving Payroll Tax Risks Of Misclassification But Employers Also Must Manage Other Legal Risks; Medical Resident Stipend Ruling Shows Health Care, Other Employers Should Review Payroll Practices; Employment Tax Takes Center Stage as IRS Begins National Research Project , Executive Compensation Audits.

The IRS hoped the threat of much larger liability if the IRS catches their misclassification in an audit would induce businesses to settle their exposure and come into compliance by participating in the VCS Program.

Part of the low participation stemmed from restrictions incorporated into the VCS Program. Not all businesses with misclassified workers qualified to use the program. The original criteria to enter the VCS Program established in 2011 required that a business:

Be treating the workers as nonemployees;
Consistently have treated the workers in the past as nonemployees;
To have filed all required Forms 1099 for amounts paid to the workers;
Not currently be under IRS audit;
Not be under audit by the Department of Labor or a state agency on the classification of these workers or contesting the classification of the workers in court; and
To agree to extend the statute of limitations on their payroll tax liabilities from three to six years.

After only about 1000 employers used the VCS Program to voluntarily resolve their payroll tax liability for misclassified workers, the IRS modified the program in hopes of making participation more attractive to businesses in Announcement 2012-45. As modified by Announcement 2012-45, employers under IRS audit, other than an employment tax audit, now qualify for the VCS Program. Announcement 2012-45 also eliminates the requirement that employers agree to extend their statute of limitations on payroll tax liability from three to six years.

A business that meets these adjusted criteria for participation now follows the following steps to enter the VCS Program:

Files the Form 8952, Application for Voluntary Classification Settlement Program, at least 60 days before the business plans to begin treating the workers as employees;
Adjusts its worker classification practices prospectively with respect to the previously misclassified workers;
Pays the required settlement fee; and
Properly classifies workers going forward.

While these changes may make participation in the VCS Program more attractive to some employers, many employers may view use of the VCS Program as too risky because of uncertainties about the proper classification of certain workers in light of the highly fact specific nature of the determination, as well as concerns about the effect that use of the VCS Program might have on the businesses non-tax misclassification exposures for workers that would be reclassified under the VCS Program.

Uncertainties Complication Worker Classification Risk Management

One of the biggest challenges to getting businesses to change their worker classifications is getting the businesses to accept the notion that long-standing worker classification practices in fact might not be defensible.

Although existing precedent and regulatory guidance makes clear that certain long-standing worker classification practices of many businesses would not hold up if scrutinized, business leaders understandably often discount the risk because these classifications historically have continued with little or no challenge in the past.

Even when business leaders recognize that changing enforcement patterns merit reconsideration of historical worker classification practices, they may be reluctant to reclassify the workers.

The common law employment test applied to decide if a worker is an employee for payroll, income tax, employee benefit plan and other purposes under the Code often relies on a subjective, highly fact-specific analysis of the particular circumstances of the worker. Employment status typically is presumed under the common law test for purposes of the Code and most other laws. This means that the business, rather than the IRS or other agency, generally bears the burden of proving the correctness of its classification of a worker as a non-employee for purposes of these determinations.

Given the business typically bears the burden of proving a worker is not an employee, a business receiving services from workers performing services in a capacity other than as a employee should ensure that the position in structural form and operation will withstand scrutiny under the common law and other applicable tests and retain the necessary evidence to support this characterization in anticipation of a potential future audit or other challenge.

Since the business can expect to bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of a nonemployee characterization, businesses also should exercise special care to avoid relying upon overly optimistic assessment of the facts and circumstances when assessing the defensibility of their characterization of the position.

When the factual evidence creates significant questions about the defensibility of a worker’s classification as a non-employee, an employing business generally should consider reclassifying or restructuring the position to be more defensible pursuant to a process designed to mitigate or resolve risks of the prior classification. Often, it also may be desirable for the business to incorporate certain contractual, compensation and other safeguards into the worker relationship, both to support the nonemployee characterization and to minimize future reclassification challenges and exposures.

Consider Importance of Attorney-Client Privilege As Risk Management Tool

Because of the broad reaching and potentially significant liability exposures arising from misclassification, business leaders generally should work to ensure that their risk analysis and decision-making discussion is conducted in a way that positions these discussions for protection under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

The availability of the attorney-client and other evidentiary privilege to help shield the investigation and associated decision-making is particularly important because of the potentially significant civil and even criminal liability exposures that often arise from worker misclassification under various relevant laws.

The interwoven nature of the tax and non-tax risks merits particular awareness by business leaders of the need to use care in deciding the outside advisors and consultants that will help in the evaluation of the risks and structuring of solutions. With the VCS Program and other tax exposures in the limelight, businesses can expect that their accounting and other consultant advisors will recommend and even offer to lead the review. While appropriately structured involvement by these non-legal consultants can be a valuable tool, the blended nature of the misclassification exposures means that the evidentiary privileges that accountants often assert to help shield their tax related discussions from discovery in certain federal tax prosecutions are likely to provide inadequate protection against discovery given the broad non-tax related exposures inherent in the misclassification problem. For this reason, business leaders are urged to require that any audits and other activities by these non-legal consultants to evaluate or mitigate these exposures be engaged and conducted whenever possible within attorney-client privilege to protect and promote the ability to assert evidentiary protections against disclosure and discovery of sensitive discussions. Accordingly, while businesses definitely should incorporate appropriate tax advisors into the evaluation process, most businesses before commencing meaningful discussions with or engaging assessments by their accounting firm or other non-attorney tax advisor will want to engage counsel and coordinate their accounting and other non-attorney tax advisors” involvement and activities through qualified legal counsel to protect and maximize the ability to conduct the analysis of their risks and options within the protection of attorney-client privilege.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor, HHS, DOJ, ICE, private claim or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation practices, compliance, or other internal controls and management concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience worker classification and other employment, employee benefits and workforce matters, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising and representing employer, employee benefit and other clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration & Customs, Justice, and Health & Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, state labor, insurance, tax and attorneys’ general, and other agencies, private plaintiffs and others on worker classification and related human resources, employee benefit, tax, internal controls, risk management and other legal and operational management concerns.

Ms. Stamer works extensively with employers, employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries, payroll and staffing companies, technology and other service providers and others to develop and run legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the immediate past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, the Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator, past-Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations who is published and speaks extensively on worker classification and related matters. She is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications.

About Solutions Law Press

For important information about this communication click 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.

1 Comment | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: contract labor, Determination Letters, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, plan qualification, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

7/24 “Health Plan Update” Workshop Kicks Off 2012 Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform Workshop Series

July 6, 2012

2012 Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform Series Provides Key Training & Information For Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers,

Fiduciaries, Administrators & Advisors On ACA & Other Responsibilities

Health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, brokers and consultants and other service providers are invited to geta 2012/2013 Health Plan Compliance Checkup by participating in the Health Plan Update Workshop Solutions Law Press, Inc. is hosting on July 24, 2012 as part of its 2012 Health Plan-U Coping with Health Care Reform Workshop Series beginning with the kickoff program, “2012 Health Plan Update” on July 24, 2012.

The Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling upholding the health care reform law means health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators, and insurers must quickly update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative procedures, contracts, reporting and other arrangements to meet Affordable Care Act and other federal rules that have, or by plan year end will, take effect pending the full rollout of the law in 2014. Beginning with the Health Plan Update Workshop on July 24, 2012, Solutions Law Press, Inc. is working to help health plans and their leaders quickly and cost-effectively get up to speed with and respond to these requirements by hosting the following series of workshops as part of its 2o12 Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform Worksop Series:

Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop*

July 24, 2012

12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Claims & Appeals Bootcamp*

July 31, 2012

12:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

HIPAA Bootcamp*

August 14, 2012

12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Health Plan Communications Bootcamp: SBCs, SPDs & Beyond*

August 28, 2012

12:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

The Workshops are designed to help health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, brokers and consultants and others with responsibilities for these plans quickly learn key steps that they may need to take to update and admininster their health plans to meet existng and emerging ACA, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Internal Revenue Code (Code) and other federal mandates.

7/24 Health Plan Update Workshop Kicks Off Series

Solutions Law Press, Inc. HR & Benefits Update will kick off its 2012 Health-U Coping With Health Care Reform Workshop Series by hosting the 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop on July 24, 2012 from 12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern, 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central, 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain and 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific Time.

The June 28, 2012 Supreme Court National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling rejecting constitutional challenges to the ACA health care reform law means most health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators, and insurers must rush to update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative procedures and contracts, reporting and other arrangements to meet the requirements of ACA that have, or by year end will, take effect pending the full rollout of the law in 2014.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to catch up on the latest requirements and guidelines impacting employer and union sponsored group health plans under ACA and other federal health plan regulations by participating in “Coping With Health Care Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. Participants may choose to attend the live briefing in Addison, Texas or take part via WebEx for a registration fee of $125.00. Texas Department of Insurance Continuing Education Credit and other professional certification credit may be requested by qualifying participant for an added charge.

The Coping With Healthcare Reform: 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop will cover the latest guidance on Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulatory changes impacting employment-based group health plans and other key information employer and other group health plan sponsors, group health plans, insurers, plan administrators, fiduciaries, brokers and advisors and others working with these plans need to understand and cope with 2012-2013 ACA and other health plan requirements including:

√ ACA Summary of Benefits And Communications Mandates & Their Implications On Plan Documents, SPDs & Administration

√ ACA Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Mandates

√ ACA External & Internal Review, ERISA Claims & Appeals, & Other Federal Claim Handling Requirements: What rules apply to which plans? What to do to minimize the impact of changing requirements?

√ ACA “Essential Health Benefit” Rules & Their Implications For Health Plans & Their Sponsors Now & After 2014

√ ACA, ADA & Other Federal Health Plan Nondiscrimination Rules

√ ACA W-2 & Other Federal Reporting, Notice & Disclosure Requirements

√ ACA grandfathered plan status: Do you have it? How do you lose it? What it does for your program?

√ ACA, COBRA, HIPAA, GINA, FMLA, Military Leave, Michelle’s Law & Other Federal Eligibility Mandates

√ Preventive care coverage & wellness program rules under Affordable Care Act, GINA, ADA & other federal regulations

√ Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under ACA, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules

√ Federal Health Plan Notice & Communication Rules

√ ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility, Reporting & Disclosure & Other Rules

√ New HIPAA Privacy Rules & Audits & How Plans & Plan Sponsors Should Respond

√ Consumer Driven Health Plan Communication Strategies

√ Tips To Help Review & Update Plans, Communications, Vendor Agreements & Processes

√ Expected & Proposed ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules

√ Practical Strategies For Monitoring & Responding To New Requirements & Changing Rules

√ Participant Questions

√ More

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer Leads Workshops

The 2012 Health Plan Update and other Coping With Healthcare Reform Workshops will be lead by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters. A well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com) and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources and related topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators and many other organizations. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Registration, Continuing Education & Other Details

Register Now! The Registration Fee per course is $125.00 per person (plus an additional $10 service fee for each individual seeking Texas Department of Insurance Continuing Education Credit). Registration Fee Discounts are available for groups of three or more. Payment required via website registration required 48 hours in advance of the program to complete registration. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. No checks or cash accepted. Persons not registered at least 48 hours in advance will only participate subject to system and space availability.

* Texas Department of Insurance and Other Continuing Education Credit

All Health Plan- U Coping With Health Care Reform programs are approved to be offered for general certification credit by the Texas Department of Insurance for the time period offered subject to fulfillment all applicable Texas Department of Insurance requirements, completion of required procedures and payment of the additional service processing fee of $10.00. An application for continuing education credit for other programs is pending. The HIPAA Bootcamp program is approved for 1.5 hours of General Credit and .5 Hours of Ethics Credit. The Texas Department of Insurance possesses the final authority to determine whether an individual qualifies to receive requested continuing education credit. Neither Solutions Law Press, Inc., the speaker or any of their related parties guarantees the approval of credit for any individual or has any liability for any denial of credit. HRCI and World At Work certification credit for the these programs has been requested but approval is currently pending. If you have special continuing education credit needs that you wish us to consider, please let us know. We are happy to visit with you about our ability to accommodate your request. Special fees or other conditions may apply.

Camcellation & Refund Policies

In order to receive refund credit, written cancellation (either fax or e-mail) must be received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting and are subject to a $10.00 refund processing fee. Refunds will be made within 60 days of receipt of written cancellation notice.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: 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. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request

Comments Off on 7/24 “Health Plan Update” Workshop Kicks Off 2012 Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform Workshop Series | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, medical leave, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Tax, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New IRS Voluntary IRS Settlement Program Offers New Option For Resolving Payroll Tax Risks Of Misclassification But Employers Also Must Manage Other Legal Risks

September 26, 2011

Program Another Sign of Growing Audit & Enforcement Risks. Businesses Urged To Strengthen Their Worker Classification Defenses

The September 22, 2011 launch by the Internal Revenue Service of a new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (“Settlement Program”) is the latest warning to businesses using independent contractors, leased employees or other non-employee workers of the need to review critically within the scope of attorney-client privilege the defensibility of their existing classification and treatment of those workers as non-employees in light of the in light of stepped up scrutiny and enforcement emphasis by the IRS and other federal and state regulators as well as workers and others in private litigation.

Coupled with growing scrutiny and challenges to businesses efforts to avoid employment-related liability and obligations through the use or workers that the business characterizes as non-employees by other federal and state agencies and plaintiff attorneys, the Settlement Agreement announcement is another sign that businesses using workers who are not employees need to be prepared to defend their worker classification and the legality of their dealings with these workers under applicable federal and state laws.

To guard against these and other growing risks of worker classification, employers receiving services from workers who are not considered employees for purposes of income or payroll should review within the scope of attorney-client privilege the defensibility of their existing worker classification, employee benefit, fringe benefit, employment, wage and hour, and other workforce policies and consult with qualified legal counsel about the advisability to adjust these practices to mitigate exposures to potential IRS, Labor Department or other penalties associated with worker misclassification.

Settlement Program Establishment Should Prompt Review Defensibility of Worker Classifications

The new Settlement Program established under Announcement 2011-64 reflects the widespread emphasis by the IRS and other federal and state regulators on uncovering and redressing misclassification of workers as non-employees by businesses for purposes of tax and other laws. IRS scrutiny of worker classification practices by businesses has risen significantly over the past decade.

The IRS’ launch of the Settlement Program follows its announcement in September, 2010 of plans to conduct approximately 6,000 payroll tax audits over a three year period focusing on the appropriateness of employer worker classification and other payroll tax practices. The announcement of the new Settlement Program signals that the IRS perceives that worker misclassification by business in violation of Federal tax laws is sufficiently widespread and pervasive to merit both efforts to incentive voluntary correction through participation in the Settlement Program, as well as stiff enforcement against businesses that fail to self-correct worker classification compliance concerns.

Designed to increase tax compliance and provide what the IRS says will be “greater certainty for employers, workers and the government,” the IRS says the Settlement Program offers eligible employers concerned about potential worker misclassification exposures that might arise from a payroll tax audit the opportunity to come into compliance by making the required filing, adjusting their practices and paying the required settlement fee effectively equaling just over one percent of the wages paid to the reclassified workers for the past year. If this settlement fee is paid and the other requirements of the Settlement Program are met, the Settlement Program specifies that employers accepted into the program will not be assessed interest or penalties and not be audited on payroll taxes related to these workers for prior years.

For businesses that can meet applicable requirements for participation, participation in the Settlement Program may offer an attractive option for resolving payroll related tax risks. However, not all employers will qualify for the Settlement Program. Employers must meet the eligibility requirements for participation.

Also, employers electing to use the Settlement Program need to understand the implications of that participation on the Statute of Limitations on their payroll tax liabilities. For the first three years of participation in the program, the Settlement Program specifies that participating employers will be subject to a special six-year statute of limitations, rather than the usual three years that generally applies to payroll taxes. Businesses will need to weigh the benefits of using the Settlement Program, if available, against the risk of reclassification and the availability of other resolution options that may be available under applicable Internal Revenue Code and IRS rules and procedures. Furthermore, many businesses evaluating worker classifications also may find it difficult to determine with certainty the risk of reclassification for certain categories of workers. Whether a worker is properly classified as an employee for most purposes under the Internal Revenue Code’s income tax withholding and reporting, payroll tax and most other employment tax turns on a highly fact specific analysis of under a common law employment test. When an analysis of the evidence reflects a high degree of certainty that the classification of a worker as a non-employee was not defensible under existing tax authorities, use of the Settlement Program or other tools to resolve liability definitely merits consideration. Because of the factual nature of the analysis, however, the decision whether to use the Settlement Program where the circumstances under which the worker renders services are less clear may be more difficult. When making these assessments, businesses should avoid the temptation of being overly optimistic in their assessment of the facts and circumstances given that the Internal Revenue Code generally assigns responsibility to the business to prove the appropriateness of its classification of a worker as a non-employee. While this allocation of the burden of proof means businesses should exercise caution when engaging workers in non-employee capacities, where the facts support this characterization, classification of a worker as a non-employee can be appropriate. When deciding to continue the non-employee characterization for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, however, businesses are urged to document the evidentiary basis and evidence supporting that determination in anticipation of a potential future audit or other challenge.

Learn more about the Settlement Program and worker classification risk management here.

Businesses Should Address Other Worker Reclassification Risks When Conducting Settlement Program Risk Analysis

As welcome as the opportunity to resolve potential payroll tax exposures through participation in the Settlement Program, businesses considering using the Settlement Program also will need to understand and prepared to address various non-tax legal concerns. Because worker misclassification tends to impact on a broad range of legal obligations and risks, businesses evaluating or planning to use the Settlement Program are act quickly, but carefully, to evaluate and determine whether and how to use the Settlement Program and to identify and take appropriate steps to address both the tax-related liabilities targeted for resolution under the Settlement Program, as well as misclassification exposures likely to arise with respect to workers to be reclassified in connection with the use of the Settlement Program.

When conducting this evaluation and deciding whether to use the Settlement Program, businesses also need to keep the wider implications of the analysis and their decisions regarding how to handle a potential aggressive or misclassification as a worker as a non-employee. A determination of potential aggressive or misclassification for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code’s payroll tax rules generally will necessitate the need to evaluate potential exposures that may arise from the worker misclassification under other federal and state laws.

Typically, in addition to treating a worker as a non-employee for tax purposes, a business also will treat the worker as a non-employee for immigration law eligibility to work, wage and hour, employment discrimination, employee benefits, fringe benefits, worker’s compensation, workplace safety, tort liability and insurance and other purposes. Consequently, a determination that reclassification is advisable for tax purposes generally will prompt the need to consider how to address the worker reclassification and attendant risk for purposes of other legal risks and requirements, as well as those covered by the Settlement Program. Businesses will need to consider how the voluntary reclassification of workers and settlement under the Settlement Program may impact their exposures and obligations under other laws. As the Settlement Program does not provide relief from the exposures arising from misclassification under other laws, businesses should be prepared to evaluate the advisability of reclassification of the worker for purposes of these other laws, the potential exposures attendant to misclassification of workers under those laws, and risks, challenges and opportunities for mitigating these exposures.

Businesses Cautioned To Conduct Evaluations & Discussions In Attorney-Client Privilege Due To Complexity & Significance of Potential Exposures

Conducting and discussing the Settlement Program and other related concerns within the scope of attorney-client privilege is particularly important because of the potentially significant civil and even criminal liability exposures that may arise from misclassification of workers for purposes of the various relevant laws. Because of the broad reaching and potentially significant non-tax exposure inherent in these discussions, business leaders are cautioned that the evidentiary privileges that often provides protection against disclosure of certain discussions with accountants and certain other non-attorney tax advisors for purposes of certain tax laws may be inadequate in scope to protect discussions against discovery for purposes of these other laws. Accordingly, while businesses definitely should incorporate appropriate tax advisors into the evaluation process, most businesses before commencing meaningful discussions with or engaging assessments by their accounting firm or other non-attorney tax advisor will want to engage counsel and coordinate the involvement of their accounting and other non-attorney tax advisors through qualified legal counsel to protect and maximize the ability to conduct the analysis of their risks and options within the protection of attorney-client privilege.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New IRS Voluntary IRS Settlement Program Offers New Option For Resolving Payroll Tax Risks Of Misclassification But Employers Also Must Manage Other Legal Risks | 105(h), Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, family leave, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor Management Relations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax, Tax Qualification, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Union, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour | Tagged: contract labor, Determination Letters, Employee, Employee Benefits, Independent Contractor, leased employee, misclassificaton, payroll tax, plan qualification, Retirement Plans, staffing, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

May 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

March 24, 2011

Employers Urged To Tighten Disability Related Discrimination Risk Management

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

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

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

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

For Help With Disability Discrimination Risk Management or Other Needs

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

EEOC Attacks Medical Leave Denials As Prohibited Disability Discrimination

October 19, 2010

Two new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuits filed against a Texas concrete manufacturer and Los Angeles garment manufacturer highlight the need for U.S. employers with more than 14 employees to consider and prepare to defend against potential disability discrimination exposures when dealing with medical leave requests by employees who might be considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as other expanding ADA enforcement exposures. Read more.

The lawsuits reflect that employers considering an employee’s request for medical leave should evaluate if the ADA requires the employer to grant the requested medical leave in addition to considering any otherwise applicable leave entitlement the requesting employee qualifies for under the Family & Medical Leave Act, state leave laws or otherwise applicable employer policies. As a result, all employers of 15 or more employees generally should review and tighten their policies and processes for evaluating requests for medical leave to minimize their exposure to claims that the denial of a requested medical leave violated the ADA.

Furthermore, employers also should consider the advisability of other more generalized policy or procedure updates to strengthen their defensibility against potential ADA and other disability claims generally in light of stepped up enforcement by the EEOC and private plaintiffs changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) that makes it easier for employees to win ADA suits. To mitigate growing exposures to these claims, employers covered by the ADA and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 should review and strengthen their existing hiring and other employment practices and documentation to strengthen their defensibility in the face of these new challenges.

If you need assistance responding an employee’s request for medical leave or other accommodations, or otherwise to review, update or defend your disability discrimination or other employment, compensation, benefits or other workforce, internal controls or risk management practices, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

About Ms. Stamer

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. When working with clients, Ms. Stamer combines a client-oriented approach with an extensive practical and technical knowledge of human resources, insurance, employee benefits, health care, privacy & security, corporate compliance and other legal matters to assist clients to formulate and administer pragmatic operational and risk management strategies and effective internal controls taking into account the financial, operational, political, legal and other realities confronting the client.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble Premier AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker who serves in the leadership of many professional and civil organizations. She regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of workforce management, employee benefits, compensation, risk management internal controls, and other related matters for businesses, trade and professional associations and others. Her insights on human resources risk management matters appear in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. To request Ms. Stamer’s assistance, for information about arranging for Ms. Stamer to provide workshops and other training, to access other publications or resources or for more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer at via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or see CynthiaStamer.com.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about upcoming programs and events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail with “Unsubscribe” in the subject here. For important information concerning this communication see here.

Comments Off on EEOC Attacks Medical Leave Denials As Prohibited Disability Discrimination | Absenteeism, ADA, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, family leave, Human Resources, Leave, medical leave, Rehabilitation Act | Tagged: absence management, Absenteeism, ADA, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, FMLA, medical leave, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Reform: What You Need To Know To Build Your Family’s Healthcare Survival Plan

August 13, 2010

Health Care Reform: What You Need To Know To Build Your Family’s Healthcare Survival Plan

August 26, 2010

6:30-8:00 PM

Sunrise of Plano Center

4800 West Parker Road

Plano, Texas 75093

Sunrise Senior Living is inviting members of the public to learn from attorney and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer about health care reform and learn practical tips to help senior and other patients and their caregivers plan their family’s healthcare survival plan.

The program will be held on August 26, 2010 from 6:30 PM-8:00 PM at the Sunrise of Plano Center located at 4800 West Parker Road, Plano, TX 75093.

During the program, Ms. Stamer will overview the impending health care reforms recently enacted by Congress and share some practical tools and information to help patients and their families, caregivers, employer and others plan for and prepare to deal with various challenges that commonly arise when caring for an elderly or ill person.

For more details about the program, see here. To RSVP, contact Sunrise Director of Community Relations Loretta Ressler by telephone at 972-985-9181 or by fax to 866-898-9748.

About Ms. Stamer

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a leader on the development of practical strategies for helping patients and their families, health care providers, employers, insurers, and others help patients and their families better handle health care and disability related challenges. The founder and President of the Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment and author of the “Health Care Toolkit” and the many other highly regarded publications and works on patient empowerment and related matters, “Cindy” is nationally and locally recognized for her activism in developing practical solutions for common health, disability and other employment challenges for employers, insurers and others.

An AV-rated attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and recognized in International Who’s Who, “Cindy” regularly helps put these and other solutions in effect in her day-to-day practice of advising health care providers, employers, health care organizations, insurers, and others about the design and implementation of patient and employee communications and consumer directed health care, patient empowerment, patient education and “patient centric” care strategies and other health care, employee benefits, disability management, human resources, insurance, and related matters.

A popular speaker nationally recognized for her legal and practical experience with patient empowerment and consumer driven health care, health care quality, and other human resources, employee benefit, and health matters, Cindy works extensively on a wide range of efforts to improve health care domestically and international. Past President and the founding Chair of the Alliance for Health Care Excellence’s Patient Empowerment Project, the current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Real Property Trusts and Estate Section Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Programs Group Chair and Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care and Insurance Interest Group A widely published author, Cindy is the author of a diverse array of employee benefit, human resources and health law publications and tools for The Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, the Thompson Publishing Group, and Spencer Publications. Her insights on patient empowerment and consumer directed health care have been quoted in the publications of BNA, Business Insurance, World At Work, the American Bar Association, the American Health Lawyers Association, Health Leaders, the Wall Street Journal, Aging Magazine, Spencer Publications, Health Care Report, the Dallas and Houston Business Journal, the Dallas Morning News and a host of other publications.

You can get more information about Ms. Stamer and her experiences, publications, programs, community service, and professional activities here. If you need assistance with these or concerns or wish to inquire about arranging for Ms. Stamer to speak on this or another topic, please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here. =

About Project COPE

Project COPE works together with employers, health care providers, insurers and other payers, community leaders, patients and others to develop, educate and share practical strategies, information and tools that help empower patients to use health care resources and payers, providers and communities to provide access to quality affordable care.

The most overlooked opportunities for quality and cost improvements rests with the people in health care:

The patients, their families and friends
Health care providers
Employers, churches, social organizations and other community organizations and resources that deal with patients and their families;
Health plans, insurers, and others that administer care; and
Others that encounter patients and their families.

The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for every American and every employer, insurer, and community organization to understand their role in the health care system and to get and share the education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, caring for elderly, disabled or ill Americans people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Speak up, step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can do so by extending yourself a little bit. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act makes financing care better or worse, the same challenges exist. The real meaning of the enacted reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Americans individually and collectively clearly should monitor and continue to provide input through this critical time to help shape constructive rather than obstructive policy. Regardless of how the policy ultimately evolves, however, Americans, American businesses, and American communities still will need to roll up their sleeves and work to deal with the realities of dealing with ill, aging and disabled people and their families. While reimbursement is an important element, money is not the only issue. Improving and maintaining quality health care requires that Americans and American employers, health care providers, government and community leaders and others understand, and share education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others.

If you or someone else is interested in learning more about Project Cope, e-mail cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or register to participate in the COPE linked in group here.

To stay in touch with these and other activities and developments of Ms. Stamer, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Health Care Reform: What You Need To Know To Build Your Family’s Healthcare Survival Plan | Disability Plans, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, medical leave, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Tagged: Disability Planning, Employers, Estate Planning, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Patient Centric, Patient Empowerment, Patients | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Conduct“Health Plan Eligibility Update” Teleconference For NBI October 13, 2010

August 5, 2010

Register Now For 8/24 2010 Health Plan Update Briefing

Employer and other group health plan sponsors and insurers, fiduciaries and administrators of group health must update their health plans and practices to comply with new federal rules imposed by the Affordable Care Act and a host of other evolving federal health plan rules. In the meantime, health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators looking to catch up on the most significant new requirements for employer and union sponsored health plans for the upcoming year also should consider registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press Health Plan Update Briefing scheduled for August 24, 2010.

October 13 NBI Teleconference Focuses On Eligibility Requirements

Catch up on the evolving federal health plan eligibility rules that employer and union sponsored group health plans must meet by listening in as attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer speaks about “Health Plan Eligibility Update”” on a live teleconference to be hosted by National Business Institutes on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 from 1:00 p.m.- 2:30 Central Time. To register or for additional information on the October 13 NBI Teleconference , visit http://www.nbi-sems.com.

During the October 13, 2010 Health Plan Eligibility Teleconference, Ms. Stamer will share:

ü Core Requirements Of Federal Group Health Plan Eligibility Rules Including Evolving Requirements of:

The Affordable Care Act
COBRA
HIPAA
GINA
Family Leave
Military Leave
Michelle’s Law & Other Dependent Coverage
Medicare Secondary Payer

ü Implications On Cafeteria Plan & Other Common Enrollment Strategies

ü Tips to Keep Health Plans Complaint

August 24 SLP Internet Briefing Overviews Latest Core Federal Rules For Group Health Plans Generally

Solutions Law Press invites you to catch up on the latest guidance about the new group health plan mandates imposed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other federal health plan regulations by participating in a live “2010 Health Plan Update” internet[i] broadcast briefing on Tuesday, August 24 2010. The briefing will be conducted via live video broadcast from 11:00 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central Time. The August 24, 2010 “2010 Health Plan Update” briefing will cover the latest guidance on Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulatory changes impacting employment-based group health plans and their sponsors for plan years beginning between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011 and other key information to help employers, group health plans, insurers, plan administrators, fiduciaries, broker and others working with these plans to understand and respond to these new requirements. Register/Get Details Here!

About The Presenter

Both programs will be conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. With more than 23 years of experience advising employers, group health plans, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and vendors, insurers and others about health plan and managed care matters, Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, publications and presentations on health plan and other employee benefit, health care and insurance matters.

Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer continuously advises employers, health plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, plan administrators, plan vendors, insurers and others about health program related legal, operational, documentation, public policy, enforcement, privacy, technology, litigation and risk management and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To contact Ms. Stamer or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here, or see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

If you found this of interest, you also may be interested in the following recent Solutions Law Press publications by Ms. Stamer:

Comments Off on Stamer To Conduct“Health Plan Eligibility Update” Teleconference For NBI October 13, 2010 | ADA, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, medical leave, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Emploeyrs, GINA, Group Health plans, Health Plans, HIPAA, Insurers | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Register Now For 8/24 2010 Health Plan Update Briefing

July 30, 2010

Learn If Your Plan Will Be Grandfathered Plan & What You Must Do Now To Meet Key 2010/2011 Affordable Care Act & Other Federal Health Plan Compliance Deadlines

A Solutions Law Press Live Internet Broadcast Briefing

August 24, 2010

10:00 A.M.-12:30 P.M. Eastern

11:00 A.M.- 1:30 P.M. Central

9:00 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Affordable Care Act Requires Prompt Action By Group Health Plans, Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Administrators

The Affordable Care Act and other impending federal health plan changes will require employment-based group health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and other service providers and insurers to make quick decisions and to act quickly to meet impending federal compliance deadlines while preserving flexibility. All employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators must act quickly to update their health plan documents, communications, insurance and vendor agreements and other practices to comply with new federal requirements that become effective under the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the plan year beginning after September 22, 2010 and various other changes in federal health plan rules effective or scheduled to take effect during 2010 or 2011 plan years. Many plan sponsors also may need to act quickly to cancel or revise plan design or vendor changes planned or already implemented since March 23, 2010 to position their health plan to qualify for grandfather status. Quick action also may be needed to claim small employer tax credits, retiree medical subsidies or other benefits.

Register Now To Get Key Information In August 24 Internet Briefing

The August 24, 2010 “2010 Health Plan Update” briefing will cover the latest guidance on Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulatory changes impacting employment-based group health plans and their sponsors for plan years beginning between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011 and other key information to help employers, group health plans, insurers, plan administrators, fiduciaries, broker and others working with these plans to understand and respond to these new requirements including:

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under Affordable Care act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage mandates & wellness program requirements & rules under Affordable Care Act & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, new FMLA, COBRA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

About The Presenter

The program will be conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. With more than 23 years of experience advising employers, group health plans, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and vendors, insurers and others about health plan and managed care matters, Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, publications and presentations on health plan and other employee benefit, health care and insurance matters.

About Solutions Law Press

[*] A limited number of participants on a space available basis will have the opportunity to participate in the briefing as a member of the live studio audio audience in Plano, Texas. Interested persons should e-mail support@solutionslawyer.net.

[†] Discounts available for groups registering three or more participants. Sponsorship opportunities also available. For information, E-mail support@solutionslawyer.net.

Comments Off on Register Now For 8/24 2010 Health Plan Update Briefing | ADA, Affordable Care Act, COBRA, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, COBRA, FLSA, GINA, grandfathered plan, Health Plan, HIPAA, Mental Health Parity, Michelle's Law | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2010 Health Plan Update: Learn What You Must Do Now To Meet Key 2010/2011 Affordable Care Act & Other Federal Health Plan Deadlines

July 23, 2010

August 24, 2010

10:00 A.M.-12:30 P.M. Eastern ¨ 11:00 A.M.- 1:30 P.M. Central ¨ 9:00 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Affordable Care Act Requires Prompt Action By Group Health Plans, Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Administrators

August 24 Live Briefing Provides Key Information By Internet Broadcast

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under Affordable Care Act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage mandates & wellness program requirements & rules under Affordable Care Act & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, new FMLA, COBRA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

About The Presenter

About Solutions Law Press

[†] Discounts available for groups registering three or more participants. E-mail support@solutionslawyer.net.

Comments Off on 2010 Health Plan Update: Learn What You Must Do Now To Meet Key 2010/2011 Affordable Care Act & Other Federal Health Plan Deadlines | ADA, Affordable Care Act, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, medical leave, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Military Leave, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reporting & Disclosure, Union, USERRA, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, broker, Employers, grandfathered plan, Group Health plans, health coverage, Health Plans, Insurer, Mental Health Parity, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, plan sponsor, pre-existing conditions, preventive care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

July 23, 2010

Register For August 24^th 2010 Health Plan Update To Catch Up On Latest Federal Health Plan Regulations

Employer and other plan sponsors, administrators, and fiduciaries of non-grandfathered group health plans must move quickly to update their plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, claims and other communications and other processes and procedures to comply with new regulations (Appeals Rules) implementing tightened health plan claims and appeals rules enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) jointly published by the U.S. Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL) and Treasury yesterday (July 23, 2010). The new Appeals Rules are the latest in a wave of new Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations that require quick action by employment based health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers. Regulations issued in previous weeks by the Departments define when health plans and health insurance policies qualify as “grandfathered” under the Affordable Care Act and interpret and implement many other federal health plan rule changes enacted by the Affordable Care Act. In addition to responding to these Affordable Care Act changes, most group health plans also will require updates in response to other federal health plan rule changes beyond those enacted under the Affordable Care Act. To assist concerned business leaders, plan fiduciaries and plan administrators to understand and cope with these new rules, Solutions Law Press invites you to participate in the live “2010 Health Plan Update,” internet workshop on August 24, 2010 from 11:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Central Time. To register or for other details, see here.

Affordable Care Act Appeals Rules & Other Federal Claims & Appeals Regulations Make Prompt Plan Review & Update Advisable

Currently, all group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must prudently process and administer claims and appeals using reasonable claims and appeals procedures that comply with detailed Labor Department regulations. Recent Supreme Court and other decisions send a strong signal that many group health plans, their insurers, and administrators need to tighten their existing documentation and practices to promote the defensibility of claims and appeal decision making under the existing requirements of ERISA and the existing Labor Department regulations implementing these requirements. These existing claims and appeals requirements generally will continue to apply to all ERISA-covered group health plans without regard to whether the group health plan qualifies as grandfathered or non-grandfathered for purposes of the affordable care act.

The new requirements generally will apply to claims denials and coverage rescissions made by non-grandfathered health plans beginning with the first plan year beginning after September 22, 2010. Furthermore, non-grandfathered group and individual health policies subject to the Appeals Rules also may continue to be required to comply with state-mandated external and/or independent review and other state-imposed claims and appeals procedures.

In addition to complying with existing claims and appeals requirements, the new Appeals Rules also will require that non-grandfathered health plans modify existing claims and appeals procedures to comply with new federal appeals protections mandated under the Affordable Care Act. The Appeals Rules requirements for internal claims and appeals processes generally will apply to any denial, reduction, or termination of, or failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit, including any:

Rescission of coverage as defined in the regulations restricting rescissions
Determination of an individual’s eligibility to participate in a plan or health insurance coverage
Determination that a benefit is not a covered benefit
Imposition of a preexisting condition exclusion, source-of-injury exclusion, network exclusion, or other limitation on otherwise covered benefits
Determination that a benefit is experimental, investigational, or not medically necessary or appropriate
Other denial, reduction, or termination of, or a failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit can include both pre-service claims (for example, a claim resulting from the application of any utilization review), as well as post-service claims and
Any other instance where a plan pays less than the total amount of expenses submitted with regard to a claim, including a denial of part of the claim due to the terms of a plan or health insurance coverage regarding co-payments, deductibles, or other cost-sharing requirements.

When applicable, the new Appeals Rules among other things will require that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers issuing non-grandfathered health insurance plans and policies:

Implement specified internal and external review procedures
Must continue to provide continued coverage pending the outcome of an internal appeal
Comply with the Appeals Rules’ additional criteria for ensuring that a claimant receives a full and fair review in addition to complying with the requirements of existing Labor Department claims and appeals procedures.

Highlights of some of these fair review requirements include:

Timely allowing a claimant to review the claim file and to present evidence and testimony as part of the internal claims and appeals process
Before issuing a final internal adverse benefit determination based on a new or additional rationale, timely proving the claimant free of charge, with the rationale
Complying with the Appeals Rules’ requirements for ensuring that all claims and appeals are adjudicated in a manner designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the persons involved in making the decision
Providing certain notifications regarding appeals and other rights as required by the Appeals Rules

The Appeals Rules also state that if a plan or issuer that fails to strictly adhere to all of its requirements with respect to a claim, the claimant may initiate an external review and pursue any available remedies under applicable law, such as judicial review regardless of whether the plan or issuer asserts that it substantially complied with these requirements or that any error it committed was de minimis.

Both Grandfathered & Non-Grandfathered Plans Should Review Existing Claims & Appeals Procedures For Compliance With Existing Labor Department Regulations

Grandfathered health plans will not be required to comply with the new Appeals Rules. Like non-grandfathered plans, however, grandfathered plans will remain covered by the current claims and appeals requirements of ERISA and the existing Labor Department regulations. Along the Labor Department updated its existing claims and appeals regulations a decade ago, many plan fiduciaries, administrators and insurers have failed to fully update their plan documentation, processes and notifications to comply with these highly specific and detailed requirements. Furthermore, most grandfathered health plan sponsors and administrators also will want to consider whether any tightening of their health plan’s claims and appeals processes is warranted by language contained in the preamble to the Appeals Rules that that clarifies the Labor Department’s interpretation of existing claims and appeals procedures.

Other Affordable Care Act & Other Health Plan Rule Changes Require Prompt Action By Group Health Plans, Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Administrators

The Appeals Rules are the latest in a series of recently-issued guidance implementing various health coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act. It follows closely the publication by the Agencies of regulations about when group health plans and insurance qualify as “grandfathered plans” for purposes of determining deadlines for complying with certain health care reform requirements imposed under the Affordable Care Act and a series of other regulations construing and implementing various other Affordable Care Act requirements. For additional information about these other Affordable Care Act requirements, see here.

These Affordable Care Act and other impending federal health plan changes will require employment-based group health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and other service providers and insurers to make quick decisions and to act quickly to meet impending federal compliance deadlines while preserving flexibility.

All employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators should be prepared to act quickly to update their health plan documents, communications, insurance and vendor agreements and other practices to comply with new federal requirements that become effective under the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the plan year beginning after September 22, 2010 and various other changes in federal health plan rules effective or scheduled to take effect during 2010 or 2011 plan years. Many plan sponsors also may need to act quickly to cancel or revise certain design or vendor changes planned or already implemented since March 23, 2010 to position their health plan to qualify for grandfather status. Quick action also may be needed to preserve options to claim small employer tax credits, retiree medical subsidies or other opportunities.

August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update” Internet Workshop Provides Key Information

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under Affordable Care act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage mandates & wellness program requirements & rules under Affordable Care Act & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, new FMLA, COBRA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

To register or get additional information, see here.

About The Author

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, fiduciaries, governments and others design, administer and defend innovative health and other employee benefit programs and other human resources, compensation and management policies and practices. Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here. If you need help with human resources or other management, concerns, wish to ask about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

Solutions Law Press & Other Solutions Law Press Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates 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 or e-mailing this information here or registering to receive our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information about this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to here.

Comments Off on New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates | Affordable Care Act, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Protected Health Information, Tax, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Claims, Claims Procedures, ERISA, Health Care Reform. Health Plans, Health Insurance, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department FMLA Guidance Signals Need For Employer Care Determining Who Qualifies As Child

July 19, 2010

Employers and employee benefit plan administrators deciding whether to approve the request of an employee for leave or other rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to the serious illness, birth, adoption or placement of a child with no legal or biological relationship with the employee should not underestimate the scope of the FMLA’s reach based on recent guidance. Employers and plan administrators also need to be sure that their policies are properly drafted and administered to apply right definition of child based on the class of leave requested as the family-status-relevant definitions under the FMLA and other laws continue to proliferate.

Recent Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division Wage and Hour Division (WHD) guidance reveals the WHD adopts a very broad view of the circumstances under which a when a child with no legal or biological relationship to an employee can qualify as a “son or daughter” for purposes of determining rights of the employee under the FMLA based on the birth , adoption, placement for adoption or need to care for the child during a serious illness and a narrow view of the documentation that an employer may require an employee to provide to prove such a relationship exists.[i]

Background

The FMLA entitles an employee to 12 work weeks of leave for the birth or placement of a son or daughter, to bond with a newborn or newly placed son or daughter, or to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition.[ii]

The definition of “son or daughter” under the FMLA includes not only a biological or adopted child, but also a “foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis” who is either:

Under 18 years of age; or
18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.”[iii]

In Loco Parentis

The FMLA regulations define in loco parentis as including those relationships between an employee and a child where the facts and circumstances show that the employee has undertaken day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child.[iv]

Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2010-3 (June 22, 2010) (WHD Interpretation) clarifies the definition of “son or daughter” under Section 101(12) of the FMLA as it applies to an employee standing “in loco parentis” to a child taking FMLA-protected leave for the birth or placement of a child, to care for a newborn or newly placed child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition. The WHD Interpretation does not address an employee’s entitlement to take military FMLA leave for a son or daughter, which is determined by separate definitions.

The WHD Interpretation states that the FMLA does not require an employee who intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent to prove that he or she provides both day-to-day care and financial support to be found to stand in loco parentis to a child.

According to the WHD Interpretation, the determination of when an employee has an in loco parentis relationship with a child is fact specific question based on the facts and circumstances with no particular factor being dispositive. . The WHD Interpretation adds that the fact that a child has a biological parent in the home, or has both a mother and a father, does not prevent a finding that the child is the “son or daughter” of an employee who lacks a biological or legal relationship with the child for purposes of taking FMLA leave.

“The key in determining whether the relationship of in loco parentis is established is found in the intention of the person allegedly in loco parentis to assume the status of a parent toward the child. The intent to assume such parental status can be inferred from the acts of the parties” taking into account a variety of factors including the age of the child; the degree to which the child is dependent on the person claiming to stand in loco parentis; the amount of support, if any, provided; and the extent to which duties commonly associated with parenthood are exercised.

Noting Congress intended the phrase “in loco parentis” to ensure that an employee who actually has day-to-day responsibility for caring for a child is entitled to leave even if the employee does not have a biological or legal relationship to that child, the WHD Interpretation states the phrase is commonly understood to refer to “a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary to legal adoption. It embodies the two ideas of assuming the parental status and discharging the parental duties.”

Applying these principles, the WHD Interpretation identifies various situations where the WHD perceives that relationship in loco parentis might exist for purposes of the FMLA based on the assumption of the employee of either responsibility to care for a child or financial responsibility for the child in the absence of a biological or legal relationship including:

Where an employee provides day-to-day care for his or her unmarried partner’s child (with whom there is no legal or biological relationship) but does not financially support the child;
Where an employee who will share equally in the raising of a newborn or adopted child with the child’s biological parent;
Where a grandparent takes in a grandchild and assumes ongoing responsibility for raising the child because the parents are incapable of providing care,;
Where an aunt assumes responsibility for raising a child after the death of the child’s parents.

In contrast, the WHD Interpretation notes that an employee who cares for a child while the child’s parents are on vacation would not be considered to be in loco parentis to the child.

When determining whether to approve a FMLA Leave request of an employee seeking time off due to the birth, adoption, placement for adoption or serious illness of a child with whom the employee has no biological or legal relationship, the WHD Interpretation makes clear that the WHD construes the phrase “in loco parentis” broadly. Furthermore, the WHD Interpretation also signals the need for employers to exercise caution when requiring documentation of the existence of such a claimed relationship. While acknowledging that the FMLA allows an employer to require an employee claiming a relationship in loco parentis with child to require the employee to provide reasonable documentation or statement of the family relationship, the WHD Interpretation raises questions about the degree of documentation that the employer may require. According to the WHD Interpretation, “[a] simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists is all that is needed in situations such as in loco parentis where there is no legal or biological relationship.”[v]

Drafting Policies & Using the Right Standard for the Right Circumstances

When drafting and applying FMLA and other legally mandated policies, it’s important that employers, employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators and others use the correct standard for the circumstance prevented. The FMLA definition of child from the WHD Interpretation applies only to determinations of the status of a person as a son or daughter for purposes of the FMLA’s leave provisions regarding leaves requested due to the serious illness, birth or adoption of a child of an employee and not for military related FMLA leaves. Different standards apply for military related FMLA leaves. Similarly, the standards used to determine who qualifies as a child for purposes of FMLA may not necessarily be the same as legally required to decide when an individual qualifies as a child for other legal purposes. For instance, recent changes to federal health plan rules enacted as part of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act may require that group health plans and insurers use different standards to decide when an individual qualifies for enrollment as the child of an employee in dependent coverage beyond those applicable under the FMLA. It is highly advisable that employers and employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators carefully review and update their existing policies, plan documents and practices for compliance with the appropriate and currently applicable standards and exercise care in the administration of these practices to avoid costly mistakes.

About the Author

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience working with employers, professional employment organizations, employee benefit plan sponsors and administrators and others on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefits, and other management matters. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, the editor of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here.

If you need help with human resources or other management, concerns, wish to ask about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

[i] See 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(g), (h).

[ii] See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(A) – (C); 29 C.F.R. § 825.200.

[iii] 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12). See also 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.122(c), 825.800.[1].

[iv] 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(c)(3).

[v] See 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(j); 73 Fed. Reg. 67,952 (Nov. 17, 2008).

Comments Off on Labor Department FMLA Guidance Signals Need For Employer Care Determining Who Qualifies As Child | Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, family leave, FMLA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, medical leave | Tagged: adoption, child, Family Leave, FMLA, medical leave, placement for adoption, serious medical condition | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny

June 29, 2010

Employers using independent contractors, leased employees or other non-employee workers should carefully review the defensibility of their existing classification and treatment of those workers under tax, labor, employment, employee benefit and other laws in light of stepped up interest and scrutiny by Congress and regulators.

On June 17, 2010, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held hearings on pending legislation intended to prevent employers from misclassifying workers as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime or other legal protections due employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act S.3254/H.R.5107 seeks to reduce misclassification errors by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act:

Requiring employers to keep accurate records of each workers’ status;
Clarifying it’s a violation of the Fair Labor FLSA to misclassify workers;
Increasing fines for misclassification under the FLSA;
Requiring employers to notify workers if the employer classifies them as an employee or independent contractor;
Creating an “employee’s rights website” containing relevant information concerning state and federal wage and hour issues; and
Protecting workers against discrimination or retaliation for requesting proper classification will be protected.

In addition to proposed changes to the FLSA, Congress also is looking at legislation that would tighten worker classification rules under other laws. For instance, the Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability and Consistency Act of 2009 H.R.3408/ S.2882 would target perceived worker misclassification employment and income tax withholding and reporting abuses by amending the Internal Revenue Code to:

Require reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of payments of $600 or more made to corporations;
Define criteria and rules relating to the treatment of workers as employees or independent contractors;
Increase penalties for failure to file correct tax return information or comply with other information reporting requirements; and
Require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an annual report on worker misclassification.

Other proposed legislation would tighten requirements and oversight of the use of independent contractors and other non-employee workers under OSHA and various other federal laws.

While Congress tightens even tighter requirements, regulators are stepping up their scrutiny of employer practices for classifying workers under existing laws. Under a National Research Program announced last September, the Internal Revenue Service has begun conducting the first of approximately 6,000 payroll tax audits that it plans to complete over a three-year period focusing on the appropriateness of employer worker classification and other payroll tax practices.

To guard against these and other growing risks of worker classification, employers should review within the scope of attorney-client privilege the defensibility of their existing worker classification, employee benefit, fringe benefit, employment, wage and hour, and other workforce policies and consult with qualified legal counsel about the advisability to adjust these practices to mitigate exposures to potential IRS, Labor Department or other penalties associated with worker misclassification.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer recently was a featured panelist on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Teleconference on “Worker Classification & Alternative Workforce: Employee Plans & Employment Tax Challenges” and has worked, published and spoken extensively on worker classification and other related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

Comments Off on Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny | ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, E-Verify, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, Government Contractors, Health Plans, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Income Tax, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Military Leave, OFCCP, OSHA, Payroll Tax, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Tax, Unemployment Benefits, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Tagged: Employee, Employment, Employment Tax, Fair Labor Standards Act, Independent Contractor, Minimum Wage, Tax, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CBO Raises Estimated Cost of Health Care Reforms As Employers, Health Plans Brace Costs Of Newly Effective & Impending Mandates

May 15, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New analysis released Tuesday, May 11 by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 (Health Care Reform Law) passed in March will cost $115 Billion more than originally estimated in the CBO’s March 15, 2010 discretionary spending analysis. News of the cost estimate increase comes as U.S. employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers and others are bracing for the first wave of new federal health plan mandates enacted as part of the Health Care Reform Law to take effect in September and a host of other federal mandates previously enacted that take effect in the 2009 and 2010 plan years.

Projected Cost of Health Care Reform Increased

According to CBO, additional information about the potential effects of the Health Care Reform Law on spending funded through the annual appropriation process (discretionary spending). By their nature all such potential effects on discretionary spending are subject to future appropriation actions, which could result in greater or smaller costs than the sums authorized by the legislation. While still limited in certain respects, the updated CBO analysis provides information on the major components of such costs in three general categories:

The costs that will be incurred by federal agencies to implement the new policies established by the Health Care Reform Law, such as administrative expenses for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service for carrying out key requirements of the legislation.
Explicit authorizations for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending for which the act identifies the specific funding levels it envisions for one or more years. (Such cases include provisions where a specified funding level is authorized for an initial year along with the authorization of such sums as may be necessary for continued funding in subsequent years.)
Explicit authorizations for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending for which no specific funding levels are identified in the legislation. That type of provision generally includes legislative language that authorizes the appropriation of “such sums as may be necessary,” often for a particular period of time.

According to the updated analysis, CBO estimates that total authorized costs in the first two categories probably exceed $115 billion over the 2010-2019 period. CBO still does not have an estimate of the potential costs of authorizations in the third category.

CBO previously issued an estimate of the Health Care Reform Law’s direct spending and revenue effects in combination with the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), which amended it. (Direct spending effects are those that do not require subsequent appropriation action.) CBO estimated that those two laws, in combination, would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues.

Impending Federal Health Plan Mandate Changes Bring New Costs, Risks Now

CBO’s adjustment to its cost projections comes as U.S. employers and insurers already are bracing to cope with a host of new federally imposed health plan mandates and accompanying costs that already have or will in the next 12-months impact their existing health benefit programs. Examples of these new mandates include:

COBRA Stimulus Bill Premium Subsidy and Other Mandates
New FMLA and USERRA Coverage Continuation Mandates
Dependent Care Coverage Extension Mandates For Students Requiring Medical Leave Effective
Genetic and Other Disability Discrimination Mandates under GINA, ADA Amendments Act of 2008, HIPAA Portability and Other Federal Mandates
Expanded Mental Health Parity Mandates
HIPAA Data Breach and Other Protected Health Information Privacy and Data Security Mandates
New IRS Excise Tax Self-Assessment & Reporting Mandates For Plans Violating COBRA, Mental Health Parity and Wide Range of Other Federal Mandates
Changes To Retiree Medical Subsidy Rules
Early Retiree Medical Reinsurance Program For Employers Providing Qualifying Retiree Coverage
New Small Employer Tax Credit Rules
Mandated extension of dependent coverage to age 26
Prohibition of Pre-Existing Condition Limits on Dependent Coverage
New restrictions on annual and lifetime benefit limitations
Mandate to cover 100% of preventative care
Prohibition against coverage rescissions
Primary Care Physician choice mandates
Restrictions on coverage limitations for emergency and obstetrical care
Extension of Internal Revenue Code Section 105(h) nondiscrimination mandates to certain insured health plans
Many others

Employer and other health plan sponsors, their insurers, administrators and others responsible for updating and administering group and other health plans must move immediately to meet these evolving mandates while bracing for anticipated increased costs and other obligations expected to result as the Health Care Reform Law takes effect over the next few years. Employers, administrators and insurers needing additional information about these changes can review the resources and training materials available here and/or contact the author of this update, attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for assistance at (469) 767-8872 or here

Responsible & Prompt Action Needed

Employer and other health plan sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries and insurers both should act quickly to update their programs, plan documents, communications and practices to comply with federal mandates that have and are scheduled to take effect and stay involved with regulators and Congress as the regulatory rules and processes to implement the Health Care Reform Law are developing. Ultimately, the cost and other implications of the Health Care Reform Law will depend largely upon how its provisions are construed and implemented by federal and state regulators, along with any subsequent adjustments, if any that Congress may elect to enact. With federal officials hard at work preparing implementing regulations and other guidance and procedures, health industry leaders and other concerned Americans should stay informed and continue to share their input on these critical issues as these decisions are shaped. Join the discussion by participating in the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy linked in group and/or its subgroup, Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment and/or register to receive updates Coalition for Responsible Heath Care Policy by RSS Feed.Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, recently has conducted briefings on the implications of the Affordable Care Act and other regulatory changes impacting health plans and their employer and other sponsors, insurers, administrators and others for the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, the Dallas Bar Association and others. Several other presentations and update are scheduled in the upcoming months. For information about these programs or to register to receive information about these programs, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 22 years of work helping businesses manage labor and employment, employee benefits, performance management and discipline, compliance and internal controls, risk management, and public policy matters including significant, cutting edge experience advising employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others design, administer, and defend defensible, cost-effective health and other employee benefit programs.

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her p