Risk Management |

Labor Department Targeting Businesses Violating Overtime, Other Wage & Hour Laws

December 27, 2012

Employers should make reviewing and tightening their worker classification and pay practices a high priority in light of the continuing aggressive investigation and enforcement of minimum wage, overtime and other federal pay law violations by the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) Wage and Hour Division (W&HD).

Latest Enforcement Shows Commitment

The Labor Department’s strong commitment to the investigation and enforcement of federal wage and hour law violations is reflected in its announcement of yet another wave of successful enforcement actions against a wide range of employers during December including the following:

Car Wash Employees Receive Back Wages. Labor Department officials say Genter’s Detailing Inc. in Frisco, Texas, has paid 53 detail and car wash employees $22,345, following a W&HD investigation that found the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by making illegal deductions from employees’ wages for damages to dealership vehicles, resulting in wages below the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. The company provides car wash and detailing services to car dealerships in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, in Katy and in Austin. More Details Here.

Oklahoma Electrical Services Company Pays Back Wages. Labor Department officials report Lighthouse Electric Inc. in Tulsa, Okla., has paid $42,452 in overtime back wages to 18 current and former electricians following an investigation that found Lighthouse Electric improperly failed to pay employees for time spent traveling to and from their facility to a work site in violation of the FLSA. More Details Here.

Web-based Auto Company Violated FLSA. Labor Department Officials report Auto Cricket Corp., doing business as AutoCricket.com, has agreed to pay $76,589 in back wages to 414 employees following a W&HD investigation that found the company deducted short rest periods as non-work hours from employee totals of hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Additionally, the company paid overtime for hours worked beyond 80 during a biweekly pay period, instead of time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in a seven-day workweek. More Details Here.

South Carolina Restaurants Pay $391,000 in Back Wages. Labor Department officials report that three San Jose Mexican restaurants, individually owned and operated by Eraclio Leon, Gregorio Leon Sr. and Antonio Leon, have agreed to pay $390,960 in back wages to 37 employees after the W&HD found the South Carolina businesses violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate employees for all work hours. Investigators determined that tipped employees, such as servers, were paid direct wages below $2.13 per hour and kitchen staff were paid flat salaries each month. More Details Here.

San Francisco Grocer to Pay Back Wages to 25 Workers. The Labor Department announced a U.S. District Court has ordered Casa Guadalupe to pay $110,071 in overtime back wages and liquidated damages to 25 current and former employees at its three San Francisco stores. The Labor Department also assessed $11,687 in civil penalties against the employer because of the willful and repeat nature of the violations. The grocery store chain admitted not paying required overtime wages. Investigators found similar violations in 2010 that resulted in $6,496 in overtime back wages due to three workers. More Details Here.

Environment Services Company Pays Back Wages To Misclassified Environmental Scientists. The Labor Department also announced that Groundwater and Environmental Services Inc., doing business as GES, will pay $187,165 in back wages to 69 employees after the W&HD found FLSA violations resulting from the company’s misclassification of junior environmental scientists and junior baseline samplers as exempt from overtime pay. The company collects water samples from property owners in close proximity to oil and gas well drilling sites for baseline sampling surveys. The investigation was part of a Wage and Hour Division’s multiyear enforcement initiative focused on the oil and gas industry. More Details Here.

Oklahoma Manufacturer Pays $85,000 for Overtime. Labor Department officials announced Deerebuilt LLC in Ardmore, Okla., has paid $85,105 in overtime back wages to 112 current and former employees following a W&HD investigation that found that the employer paid “straight time” for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime at time and one-half employees’ regular rates of pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, as required by the FLSA. The employer paid employees for overtime hours worked on weekends with separate checks, at straight-time rates. More Details Here.

Oklahoma City Company Faulted for FLSA & Davis-Bacon Violations. The Labor Department announced that Mallett Plumbing and Utility Co. in Oklahoma City has paid $100,264 in back wages to 19 current and former plumbers after an investigation found violations of the FLSA and the Davis-Bacon Act. The W&HD says the company failed to pay workers for overtime and failed to pay prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits. A W&HD investigation found Mallett Plumbing and Utility paid straight time for all hours worked and failed to pay employees the required wages and fringe benefits applicable to the classifications of work they performed while working on building alterations and construction projects for the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. More Details Here.

The Christmas Light Co. Inc. According to the Labor Department, an investigation by its Dallas Wage and Hour Division office found that The Christmas Light Co. Inc. violated the FLSA by failing to pay 233 installers and removers the minimum and overtime wages and keep records required by law. The complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas seeks back wages and liquidated damages of nearly $500,000 and an injunction against future violations of the FLSA.

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that the Labor Department’s suit against the Christmas Light Co. Inc. lawsuit is reflective of a strong enforcement commitment targeting U.S. employers using aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Millh ion+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiate proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees;
Consider advisability of tracking hours and activities of employees considered exempt;
Evaluate and manage risks of outsourced labor such as leased, contract or other similar “off-payroll” workers;
Re-engineerwork rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures; and
Consider and properly coordinate worker classification for health and other employee benefit plan eligibility and other purposes to mitigate risks from unanticipated employee benefit liabilities resulting from misclassification.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before starting their risk assessment and assess risks and claims within the scope of attorney-client privilege to help protect the ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections to help shelter conversations or certain other sensitive risk activities from discovery under the rules of evidence.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, or other federal or state agencies or other private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, compliance, employee benefit or compensation 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. 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, Ms. Stamer often has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance 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 more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in exploring other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ tools, products, training and other resources here and reading some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ human resources news here including the following:

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 | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Bank’ $1Million Plus Overtime Settlement Shows Risks of Misapplying FLSA’s Administrative Exemption

December 1, 2012

Department of Labor (Labor Department) officials are pointing to a more than $1 million backpay settlement paid by First Republic Bank as a reminder of the risks that employers run by treating employees as exempt from minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping requirements without confirming that the facts surrounding the employment of each employee considered exempt in fact meet every condition that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires to qualify as exempt.

First Republic Bank paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012.

The settlement came after an investigation by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division found that the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all 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.

While the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees, job titles do not determine the applicability of this or other FLSA exemptions. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.

Investigators found that First Republic Bank failed to consider the FLSA’s criteria that allow certain administrative and professional employees to be exempt from receiving overtime pay. In fact, the employees were entitled to overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week. Additionally, the bank failed to include bonus payments in nonexempt employees’ regular rates of pay when computing overtime compensation, in violation of the act. Record-keeping violations resulted from the employer’s failure to record the number of hours worked by the misclassified employees.

“It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that employers that improperly treat workers as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requriements run a big risk. The Labor Deprtment and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Bank’ $1Million Plus Overtime Settlement Shows Risks of Misapplying FLSA’s Administrative Exemption | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Serves The Christmas Light Co. & Its Owner With Holiday Season FLSA Lawsuit

November 30, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) kicked off the 2013 Holiday Season by filing a lawsuit against The Christmas Light Co. Inc. and owner William F. Rathburn to recover approximately $240,881 in wages and an additional amount in liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of 233 employees who installed and removed lights for the company. Yet another in a growing list of lawsuits against U.S. employers accused of failing to comply with FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules, the lawsuit reflects the significant risks that U.S. businesses risk by failing to properly track and pay employees covered by the FLSA as required.

Holiday Season FLSA Suit Casts Shadow Over The Christmas Light Co. Inc.

According to the Labor Department, an investigation by its Dallas Wage and Hour Division office found that The Christmas Light Co. Inc. violated the FLSA by failing to pay 233 installers and removers the minimum and overtime wages and keep records required by law. The complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas seeks back wages and liquidated damages of nearly $500,000 and an injunction against future violations of the FLSA.

The Labor Department says that its investigation determined that the company violated the FLSA by paying non-exempt workers a flat rate for installing and removing Christmas lights without regard to the number of hours the employees had worked. Investigators also found that in most cases employees were paid “straight time” rather than overtime at time and one-half their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week, as required. Additionally, the Labor Department found that the company failed to keeprecords required by the FLSA.

The lawsuit against The Christmas Light Co. Inc. spotlights a growing emphasis by the Labor Department on investigation and enforcement of employer violations of the FLSA. “The Labor Department holds employers accountable when they do not properly pay their workers,” said Cynthia Watson, regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division in the Southwest. “Failing to pay minimum and overtime wages is unacceptable. Such behavior robs workers of their rightful wages and undercuts those hardworking and conscientious employers who obey the law. This lawsuit demonstrates that the department will use all enforcement tools available, including litigation, to recover workers’ wages and ensure a level playing field for law-abiding employers.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Labor Department Serves The Christmas Light Co. & Its Owner With Holiday Season FLSA Lawsuit | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Boston Hides and Furs Ltd. Sued For $1 Million For Alleged Willful FLSA Wage & Hour Law Violations

November 28, 2012

U.S. employers using aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying overtime should heed the expensive lesson that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) hopes to teach employer Boston Hides & Furs Ltd. and members of its management in a lawsuit filed in Boston.

Citing “knowing, deliberate and intentional” violations of federal wage and hour law, the DOL is suing Boston Hides and Furs Ltd. and company officials seeking at least $500,000 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages for allegedly underpaying employees of the Chelsea wholesale animal hide business. See Solis v. Boston Hides & Furs Ltd., Anthony Andreottola, Angelo Andreottola and Antoinetta Andreottola Parisi, CV-1:12-CV-11997-MLW. The suit illustrates the significant liability that companies or their owners or management risk by failing to properly pay workers covered by the FLSA and meet other FLSA requirements.

FLSA Generally

The FLSA generally requires that an employee pay each covered employees at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as well as time and one-half their regular rates for every hour they work beyond 40 per week. When the state minimum wage is higher than the federally mandated wage, and employees work more than 40 hours in a week calculated in accordance with applicable state laws, employees paid at the minimum permissible level are entitled to overtime compensation based on the higher state minimum wage. Time credited may be determined differently under state law versus the FLSA. Employers must make sure proper crediting, record keeping and payment in time to meet both applicable requirements.

The FLSA also requires employers to keep accurate records of covered employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under the law. Special rules also may apply to the employment of children or other special populations.

The rules generally establish a legal presumption that a worker performing services is working as a covered employee of the recipient. Unfortunately, many businesses that receive services often unintentionally incur liability because they ill-advisedly misclassify workers as performing services as independent contractors, salaried employees or otherwise exempt by failing to recognize the implications of this presumption. The presumption that a worker is a covered employee generally means that an employer that treats a worker as exempt bears bear the burden of providing that a worker is not a covered employee and keeping accurate records to show that it has properly tracked the hours of and paid each covered employee.

The FLSA provides that employers who violate the law are, as a general rule, liable to employees for back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. State wage and hour laws also typically provide for back pay and liquidated damage awards. Attorneys’ fees and other costs often also are recoverable. In certain instances where the violations are knowing, deliberate and intentional, violators often may risk criminal as well as civil liability.

DOL Sues Boston Hides and Furs Ltd For Knowing, Deliberate & Willful FLSA Violations

The DOL lawsuit seeks to recover more than $1 million from Boston Hides and Furs Ltd and various company officials for allegedly engaging in knowing and deliberate violations of the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and retaliation rules.

The DOL filed the lawsuit in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after a DOL Wage & Hour Division investigation found the employer committed willful and repeated violations of the minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping provisions of the FLSA including offering for shipment or sale “hot goods” produced in violation of the law during a period spanning at least three years. The suit also asserts that the company unlawfully retaliated against several workers by firing them after they cooperated with the federal investigation.

In its complaint, the DOL claims the investigation found that 14 Boston Hides & Furs employees worked approximately 10 hours per day, six days per week processing hides and furs for shipping to tanneries. DOL says Boston Hides paid these workers a daily cash wage of $50 to $70, which amounted to an hourly pay rate far below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The employees also were not paid time and one-half the required state minimum wage of $8 applicable for those hours worked above 40 in a week. Additionally, the defendants failed to keep adequate records of the workers’ employment, work hours and pay rates, and a representative of the defendants falsely told investigators that the company’s payroll records included all employees.

The lawsuit also charges that the defendants ordered employees to hide in a nearby house when DOL Wage and Hour Division investigators first arrived at Boston Hides & Furs so they could not be interviewed. Two days after investigators subsequently interviewed the workers, the defendants fired the workers. During their employment, DOL claims company officials threatened and subjected the workers to verbally abusive treatment on an ongoing basis, particularly when they asked about their pay rates.

In addition to back wages and liquidated damages, the DOL lawsuit seeks to permanently prohibit the defendants from future FLSA violations — including a prohibition against shipping any goods handled by workers who were paid in violation of the law — and compensatory and punitive damages for the workers on account of their unlawful firing. The Wage and Hour Division also has assessed $100,000 in civil money penalties against Boston Hides & Furs Ltd. for willful violations of the FLSA.

Overtime & Other Wage & Hour Enforcement Risks Rising

Employers increasingly risk triggering significant liability by failing to properly characterize, track and pay workers for compensable time in violation of the FSLA or other laws. Unfortunately, many employers often are overly optimistic or otherwise fail to properly understand and apply FLSA rules for characterizing on-call or other time, classifying workers as exempt versus non-exempt or making other key determinations.

The potential that noncompliant employers will incur these liabilities has risen significantly in recent years. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. While all employers face heightened prosecution risks, federal officials specifically are targeting government contractors, health care, technology and certain other industry employers for special scrutiny. DOL also is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. Meanwhile, private enforcement of these requirements by also has soared following the highly-publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations on the classification of workers during the last Bush Administration. See Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of appropriate corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Reengineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, PBGC, private plaintiff 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 here or at (469) 767-8872 .

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Boston Hides and Furs Ltd. Sued For $1 Million For Alleged Willful FLSA Wage & Hour Law Violations | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers

November 9, 2012

Restaurant and other U.S. employers should audit and tighten their pay and record keeping practices as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage & Hour Division’s deploys its new employee Smart Phone application and other technology tools that DOL plans to use in waging war against employers that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping requirements against employers.

DOL Unveils New Smart Phone Employee App & Other Tools To Promote FLSA Compliance

Under the Obama Administration, the DOL has undertaken a wide range of efforts to promote compliance with and enforce the minimum wage, overtime and other requirements of the FLSA against restaurant and other employers. As part of this enforcement and compliance campaign, DOL is developing and deploying new Smartphone applications and other tools that it hopes with help employees and DOL enforce the FLSA.

One of the newest of these tools is a new Smartphone application intended for use by employees. DOL recently has developed a Smartphone application available here that DOL intends will help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages their employer owes them. Available in English and Spanish, DOL reports users can track regular work hours, break times and any overtime hours for one or more employers. DOL touts the new application as allowing workers to keep their own records instead of having to rely on their employers’ records.

The new timekeeping application tool for employees is just one of several new resources that the DOL hopes will support its enforcement and compliance initiatives. For instance, the free mobile application “Eat Shop Sleep” available here from the DOL allows consumers, employees and other members of the public to check if the DOL Wage and Hour Division has investigated a hotel, restaurant or retail location and whether DOL found FLSA violations.

FLSA Wage & Hour Violations Can Carry Big Liability

The FLSA requires that covered nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 per week. In accordance with the FLSA, an employer of a tipped employee is required to pay no less than $2.13 an hour in direct wages provided that amount plus the tips received equals at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. If an employee’s tips combined with the employer’s direct wages do not equal the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference. Employers are required to provide employees notice of the FLSA’s tip credit provisions, to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and to comply with the act’s restrictions applying to workers under age 18.

Violation of these requirements can result in significant civil or even criminal liability. Under the FLSA’s civil remedy provisions, employers violating minimum wage or overtime requirements can be held liable for back pay plus exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Additional liability can arise from civil penalties imposed for record-keeping violations. If the violations are found to be knowing and willful, criminal penalties also are possible. Since such violations can qualify as a felony under the FLSA, these liabilities can extend both to the employing entity as well as owners or management officials under certain circumstances.

Under the Obama Administration, enforcement of these rules in the restaurant and other industries with low paid workforces has become a key Labor Department priority, as evidenced by recent enforcement actions that the DOL has taken against Oklahoma-based El Tequila LLC restaurants and Florida-based Domino’s Pizza franchise operator PDQ Pizza.

Lawsuit against El Tequila LLC Seeks $1M In Back pay

On October 25, the DOL announced it is suing Tulsa-based El Tequila LLC and its owner, Carlos Aguirre, for alleged violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping provisions which DOL claims resulted in a total of approximately $1 million in unpaid wages owed to 221 kitchen and wait staff, hosts and bussers at four restaurant locations.

DOL charges that El Tequila LLC violated the FLSA by paying FLSA-covered employees, who in some cases worked as many as 72 hours in a week, a fixed salary without overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In addition to overtime violations, DOL charges this practice resulted in minimum wage violations because employees did not always receive at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. DOL also claims investigators found that wait personnel were required to turn their tips over to management at the end of every shift, which caused their pay to fall below the minimum wage. Finally, the suit charges employer did not keep proper records as required.

The suit filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa Division, seeks to recover the full amount of nearly $1 million in back wages for the employees as well as an injunction prohibiting future violations of the FLSA.

Florida-Based Domino’s Pizza Franchise To Pay $371,675 Back pay Settlement

DOL’s announcement of its El Tequila LLC lawsuit follows on the heels of DOL’s October 24 announcement that Melbourne, Florida-based PDQ Pizza, doing business as Domino’s Pizza, has paid $371,675 back pay to settle DOL charges that it violated the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and record-keeping provisions.

According to DOL, PDQ operates Domino’s Pizza franchises in 19 locations in Palm Beach, Indian River and Brevard counties.

DOL says its Investigators found systemic violations resulting from the company’s failure to properly compensate tip-earning employees, such as delivery drivers, for all of their hours worked. Even when performing nontipped duties such as cooking, cleaning and stocking, DOL says PDQ Pizza paid the workers as if they were tipped employees, with hourly wage rates as low as $5.15 rather than the required federal minimum wage of $7.25.

DOL also charges that the employer made illegal deductions from employees’ wages for uniforms, and failed to properly calculate and compensate tipped employees for all overtime hours (those worked in excess of 40 in a week).

Finally, DOL charged the employer failed to record and designate hours worked as tipped or nontipped in order to pay employees correctly, which violates the FLSA’s record-keeping provisions.

Following the investigations, DOL reports PDQ Pizza paid all back wages owed and agreed to support future compliance with the FLSA. The company also committed to changing its timekeeping and payroll practices to ensure that all hours worked by tipped and nontipped employees are properly recorded and compensated in accordance with the FLSA.

South Carolina Ponchos Restaurants Pay $486,000 Backpay Settlement

PDQ Pizza’s settlement isn’t unusual. Earlier in October, Poncho’s Inc. – doing business as Poncho’s Mexican Restaurant I, II and III – and Papa’s and Beer Mexican Restaurant agreed to pay 85 employees a total of $485,913 in back wages under a FLSA settlement covering DOL charges of overtime, minimum wage and record-keeping violations at all four restaurant locations.

At Pancho’s Mexican Restaurant I, II and III, investigators found that employees were not properly compensated for all work hours. By reviewing payroll records and conducting employee interviews, investigators determined that tip-earning employees such as servers were made to rely primarily on tips for pay and consequently earned wages that fell below $2.13 per hour in violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage provision. Additionally, other employees such as kitchen staff were paid flat salaries each month — without regard to hours worked — that did not satisfy minimum wage or overtime pay requirements. The employer also failed to maintain accurate records of employees’ work hours and wages. As a result, 38 employees will receive a total of $414,079 in back wages.

DOL says the Papa’s and Beer Mexican Restaurant investigation revealed that the employer made impermissible deductions for uniforms and other expenses from the wages of tip-earning employees, causing their hourly wages to fall below the federal minimum wage. Additionally, other employees such as kitchen staff were paid flat salaries each month — without regard to hours worked — that did not satisfy minimum wage or overtime pay requirements. The employer also failed to record the hours worked by kitchen staff. As a result, a total of $71,834 in back wages is owed to 47 employees.

The restaurants have agreed to maintain future compliance with the FLSA by keeping accurate records of all hours worked by all employees, paying them at least the federal minimum wage, providing overtime compensation, and informing employees in advance that the tip credit will be used.

Restaurant & Other Employers Of Low-Paid Workers Face High Enforcement Risks

While the Obama Administration has made FLSA enforcement in general a priority, it is particularly targeting restaurant and certain other categories of employers who employ low-income workers for scrutiny and enforcement. “The restaurant industry employs some of our country’s lowest-paid, most vulnerable workers,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “When violations of the FLSA are discovered, the Labor Department will take appropriate action to ensure workers receive the wages they have earned and to which they are legally entitled.”

The Ponchos investigations were conducted under a multiyear enforcement initiative focused on the restaurant industry in South Carolina, where widespread noncompliance with the FLSA has been found. Since the start of fiscal year 2009, the division’s Columbia District Office has concluded more than 300 investigations under the initiative, resulting in more than $2.5 million in back wages recovered for more than 2,500 workers.

“We found many low-wage employees working up to 65 hours a week without any overtime compensation and receiving pay below the federal minimum wage. Unfortunately, significant labor violations like the ones we found in this case are all too common in the restaurant industry,” said Michelle Garvey, director of the division’s Columbia office in the announcement concerning the Ponchos settlement. “We are pleased that these workers finally will be paid their rightful wages and, as demonstrated by our ongoing initiative, we will continue to investigate South Carolina restaurants to remedy violations and ensure sustained compliance with the law.”

In light of these enforcement emphasis and the growing range of tools that the Labor Department is deploying to find and prosecute FLSA violations, restaurant and other employers should use care to ensure that their practices for classifying workers as exempt or non-exempt, recording hours worked and compensating non-exempt workers comply with the FLSA and other relevant laws. When evaluating and deciding how to address potential FLSA exposures, it is critical that employers avoid the temptation to wear role tinted glasses when making wage and hour worker classification or compensable time determinations or take for granted the legal defensibility of past practices within their own or industry workforces.

Under the FSLA and applicable state wage and hour laws, employers generally bear the burden of proving that they have properly paid their employees in accordance with the FLSA. Additionally, the FLSA and most applicable state wage and hour laws typically mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records. Since the burden of proof of compliance generally rests upon the employer, employers should take steps to ensure their ability to demonstrate that they have properly paid non-exempt employees in accordance with applicable FLSA and state wage and hour mandates and that employees not paid in accordance with these mandates qualify as exempt from coverage under the FLSA.

These mistakes can be very costly. Employers that fail to properly pay employees under Federal and state wage and hour regulations face substantial risk. In addition to liability for back pay awards, violation of wage and hour mandates carries substantial civil – and in the case of willful violations, even criminal- liability exposure. Civil awards commonly include back pay, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

The potential that noncompliant employers will incur these liabilities has risen significantly in recent years. Under the Obama Administration, Labor Department officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, recordkeeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. While all employers face heightened prosecution risks, federal officials specifically are targeting government contractors, health care, technology and certain other industry employers for special scrutiny. Meanwhile, private enforcement of these requirements by also has soared following the highly-publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations regarding the classification of workers during the last Bush Administration. See Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

As a consequence, most employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take appropriate steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take appropriate steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of appropriate corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and recordkeeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Reengineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel prior to the commencement of their assessment and to conduct the assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to minimize risks that might arise out of communications made in the course of conducting this sensitive investigation.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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 pay, workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation 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. 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, 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 HR.com editorial advisory board member, Ms. Stamer frequently has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance 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, Inc.™

Comments Off on New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers | Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Landscaper’s $106,000 In Minimum Wage & Overtime Settlement Reminds Employers To Prepare For FLSA Enforcement

October 17, 2012

Midland, Texas-based landscaper, Turf Specialties Inc. (TSI) will pay $106,818 in back wages to 70 current and former landscape workers to settle charges made by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL) that TSI payment of workers a fixed, bi-weekly salary violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum and overtime provisions. The settlement is a reminder to landscape and other U.S. employers of the importance of insuring that their company designs and administers worker classification, salary and other wage and compensation practices and data to defend against wage and other charges and claims.

FLSA & Other Minimum Wage & Overtime Violations Risky

The FLSA requires that properly classify covered non-exempt workers and pay the workers 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 treating workers performing serves as exempt from the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and other rules generally bear the burden of proving that the worker either is not properly classified as a common law employee or qualifies as exempt from the FLSA requirements under one of the applicable FLSA exemptions. For non-exempt employees, the applicable employer also generally is responsible for collecting and maintaining records of hours worked and its proper payment of minimum wage and overtime in accordance with the FLSA requirements. In addition to these federal rules, employers generally also are subject to various state minimum wage and overtime requirements. Beyond the risk of enforcement by the DOL and state labor officials, employers violating these rules also generally run the risk of lawsuits brought by employees or groups of employees, seeking actual damages, attorneys fees and costs and punitive or other awards.

TSI Action Illustrates Big Risks of Misclassification Or Other FLSA Violations

The TSI settlement announced today highlights some of the risks that employers run when they get caught playing fast and loose with the FLSA or other wage and hour laws.

According to today’s announcement, a DOL investigation of TSI uncovered a series of FLSA wage and hour DOL investigators found that TSI paid the landscape employees a fixed, biweekly salary that in many workweeks amounted to less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and did not compensate the employees at time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a particular workweek. DOL also says that TSI committed other minimum wage and overtime violations by improperly deducting from employees’ paychecks amounts for uniforms, broken tools and equipment damage. Investigators also found that several employees working as “crew leaders” were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provision and consequently denied proper overtime compensation.

TSI Settlement Highlights Rising Risks

One of a growing number of costly wage and hour law settlements, the TSI settlement is a relatively small reminder of how costly a mistake employers can make by engaging in overly aggressive worker classification or pay practices. Through the settlement, TSI avoided potentially much greater fines by agreeing to pay all back wages of more than $106,000 due to the affected workers and committing to future compliance with the FLSA. It comes on the same day as another employer might not get off that lucky. Along with the TSI announcement, DOL also announced that it sued to recover $285,000 in back wages for 171 Ohio restaurant workers working under restaurants three restaurants doing business as El Rancho Grande.Highlighting the growing exposure employers generally face from the heightened Labor Department emphasis on overtime and other wage and hour law enforcement, .the settlement also demonstrates the significant risks that employers face from mischaracterizing or failing to properly pay for on-call, standby or other similar times required of non-exempt employees. Employers and others providing workforce staffing should check and tighten existing worker classification, timekeeping and classification, record keeping and other practices and take other steps to strengthen the defensibility of their practices. As the DOL and private plaintiffs become increasingly aggressive about enforcing these rules, settlements of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars are increasingly common. See, e.g. Record $2.3 Million+ H-2A Backpay Order Plus Civil Money Penalty Reminds Businesses Employing Foreign Workers To Manage Compliance; Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Back pay Settlement; March 21 New Deadline To Comment On Proposal To Extend Minimum Wage, Overtime Rules To In Home Care Workers; $1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices; 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.

Unfortunately, many employers often are overly optimistic or otherwise fail to properly understand and apply FLSA rules for characterizing on-call or other time, classifying workers as exempt versus non-exempt or making other key determinations.

Employers wearing rose-tinted glasses when making wage and hour worker classification or compensable time determinations tend to overlook the significance of the burden of proof they can expect to bear should their classification be challenged. Under the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws, employers generally bear the burden of proving that they have properly paid their employees in accordance with the FLSA. Additionally, the FLSA and most applicable state wage and hour laws typically mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records. Since the burden of proof of compliance generally rests upon the employer, employers should take steps to ensure their ability to demonstrate that they have properly paid non-exempt employees in accordance with applicable FLSA and state wage and hour mandates and that employees not paid in accordance with these mandates qualify as exempt from coverage under the FLSA.

These mistakes can be very costly. Employers that fail to properly pay employees under Federal and state wage and hour regulations face substantial risk. In addition to liability for back pay awards, violation of wage and hour mandates carries substantial civil – and in the case of willful violations, even criminal liability exposure. Civil awards commonly include back pay, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

The potential that noncompliant employers will incur these liabilities has risen significantly in recent years. Under the Obama Administration, Labor Department officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. While all employers face heightened prosecution risks, federal officials specifically are targeting government contractors, health care, technology and certain other industry employers for special scrutiny. Meanwhile, private enforcement of these requirements by also has soared after the highly publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations on the classification of workers during the last Bush Administration. See Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

Employers Should Strengthen Worker Classification & Pay Practices For Defensibility

As a result, most employers should check and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take proper steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and tighten processes as needed to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each that the employer treats as either contract labor, salaried or otherwise exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review situations where the employer pays a worker salary, flat fees for weeks of work, on-call, standby, per job, per diem or other ways other than on an hourly basisto confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, consult with qualified, experienced legal counsel about options and the advisability of corrective action;
Review of existing documentation and recordkeeping practices for hourly, salaried, and other employees and contractors to build a safety net to help mitigate exposures in the event of reclassification or other challenges;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees;
Reengineer work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations;
Re-evaluate these arrangements periodically, as well as in the event of a challenge by a similar worker; and
Stay vigilent.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before beginning an assessment and to conduct the assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to minimize risks that might arise out of communications made in the course of conducting this sensitive investigation. Because conversations among leadership, with vendors, or with accounting or other consulting service providers about worker classification, wage and other compensation arrangements typically do not enjoy the protection of attorney-client privilege, employers also should exercise caution about securing the assistance of these service providers to conduct risk audits, or when discussing concerns or possible remedies with these parties unless and until proper arrangements are made to include those discussions within the scope of attorney-client privilege or making other suitable arrangements to manage the risks of these disclosures.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other agency or private plaintiff legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification, pay or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation 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. A member of the Editorial Advisory Board of HR.com, the immediate past 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 frequently has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance 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, Inc.™

Comments Off on Texas Landscaper’s $106,000 In Minimum Wage & Overtime Settlement Reminds Employers To Prepare For FLSA Enforcement | Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Borzi Tells House Committee Current Fiduciary Regs Flawed; Must Fix Loopholes In Investment Advisor Definition To Protect Plans

July 28, 2011

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Phyllis C. Borzi testified Tuesday, July 26, 2011 to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommitte on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions that EBSA a proposed fiduciary regulation that would update EBSA regulations defining when a person is considered a “fiduciary” by reason of giving investment advice for a fee with respect to assets of an employee benefit plan or IRA will help protect employee benefit plan participants by correcting “loopholes” in a “flawed 35-year-old rule” that allow many parties providing advice about the investment of retirement plan assets to escape coverage by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. The proposed regulations and other stepped up regulations and enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary protections by the EBSA means that plan sponsors, fiduciaries, investment advisors and other plan service providers and others involved in the sponsorship, design, and administration of an employee benefit plan need to act to manage expanding fiduciary responsibilities and exposures.

Borzi Says Loopholes & Other Flaws In Existing Regulations Hurt Plans & Their Participants

Borzi told the Committee that EBSA believes its rules about the types of advisory relationships that give rise to fiduciary status under the ERISA on the part of those providing investment advice services need to change because “technicalities” and “loopholes” in the current EBSA fiduciary regulations definition of “investment advisor” in effect since 1975 harms participants and beneficiaries by allowing many advisers to easily dodge fiduciary status.

Borzi testified that the five-part regulatory test used under the current regulations to determine when ERISA’s fiduciary requirements apply to “investment advice” and when the advisor is a “fiduciary” significantly narrowed the plain language of the ERISA statute so that much of what plainly is advice about plan investments is not treated as investment advice as fiduciary conduct under ERISA and the person paid to render that advice is not treated as an ERISA fiduciary.

Under current fiduciary regulation, an investment adviser is not treated as a fiduciary accountable for complying with ERISA’s prudence, exclusive benefit, prohibited transaction and other fiduciary responsibility safeguards if and when providing advice that meets each element of a five part test.

Under the current regulation, a person is a fiduciary under ERISA and/or the tax code with respect to their advice only if and when he or she:

Make recommendations on investing in, purchasing or selling securities or other property, or give advice as to their value;
On a regular basis;
Pursuant to a mutual understanding that the advice;
Will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions; and
Will be individualized to the particular needs of the plan.

Borzi told members of Congress this narrow definition of investment advisor exempts a wide range of parties receiving compensation for providing advice about the investment of employee benefit funds from coverage by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility requirements. Borzi testified that the narrowness of the existing regulation opened the door to serious problems, and changes in the market since the regulation was issued in 1975 have allowed these problems to proliferate and intensify. Borzi says the narrowness of the regulation has harmed some plans, participants, and IRA holders. Research has linked adviser conflicts with underperformance. SEC reviews of certain financial sales practices may also reflect these influences. Finally, EBSA’s own enforcement experience has demonstrated specific negative effects of conflicted investment advice.

Borzi Says Proposed Regulation Would Strengthen Protections For Plans & Their Participants

Borzi said the proposed regulation published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2010 would change the rules defining a person is considered to be a “fiduciary” by reason of giving investment advice for a fee with respect to assets of an employee benefit plan or IRA by modifying the current regulation in effect since 1975 would replace the five-part test of “investment advisor” with a broader definition more in keeping with the statutory language while providing clear exceptions for conduct that should not result in fiduciary status.

According to Borzi, types of advice and recommendations that generally would trigger fiduciary status under the proposed regulations include: (1) appraisals or fairness opinions concerning the value of securities or other property; (2) recommendations as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, holding or selling securities or other property; or (3) recommendations as to the management of securities or other property.

To be a fiduciary for performing these or other activities treated as fiduciary investment advice, Borzi explained that a person engaging in one of these activities must receive a fee and also meet at least one of the following four conditions:

Represent to a plan, participant or beneficiary that the individual is acting as an ERISA fiduciary;
Already be an ERISA fiduciary to the plan by virtue of having any control over the management or disposition of plan assets, or by having discretionary authority over the administration of the plan;
Be an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or
Provide the advice pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the advice may be considered in connection with investment or management decisions with respect to plan assets and will be individualized to the needs of the plan.

At the same time, Borzi testified that the proposed regulation recognizes that activities by certain persons should not result in fiduciary status. Specifically, these are:

Persons who do not represent themselves to be ERISA fiduciaries, and who make it clear to the plan that they are acting for a purchaser/seller on the opposite side of the transaction from the plan rather than providing impartial advice;
Persons who provide general financial/investment information, such as recommendations on asset allocation to 401(k) participants under existing Departmental guidance on investment education;
Persons who market investment option platforms to 401(k) plan fiduciaries on a non-individualized basis and disclose in writing that they are not providing impartial advice; and
Appraisers who provide investment values to plans to use only for reporting their assets to the DOL and IRS.
EBSA Still Working To Address Expressed Concerns

The proposed regulation has prompted a large volume of comments and a vigorous debate. Borzi testified that the EBSA is working hard to hear and consider every stakeholder concern and shared some examples of how EBSA is considering addressing certain of these concerns. Borzi said EBSA is taking multiple steps in its effort to respond to these and other concerns in its efforts to finalize the regulation including:

Borzi told the Committee EBSA is working to better understand how specific compensation arrangements would be affected by the proposed rule and whether clarifications of existing prohibited transactions exemptions would be appropriate. Borzi said EBSA has already begun to issue subregulatory guidance describing some of these clarifications and will continue to do so as necessary as it completes its analysis.

Borzi also said that as EBSA further develops its thinking in this rulemaking, EBSA is paying special attention to the two primary exceptions to fiduciary status under the proposed rule: (1) clarifying the difference between investment education that does not give rise to fiduciary status and fiduciary investment advice; and (2) clarifying the scope of the so-called “sellers’ exception” under which sales activity is not fiduciary advice. In both cases, Borzi said EBSA intends to analyze and address the comments and concerns that were raised during our extensive public comment period.

Finally, Borzi said EBSA is exploring a range of appropriate regulatory options for moving forward, taking into consideration public comments submitted for the record, EBSA’s economic analysis, and relevant academic research. In so doing, Borzi told the Committee EBSA is aiming to address conflicted investment advice while not unnecessarily disrupting existing compensation practices or business models.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers Should Prepare For Tighter Rules While Continuing To Provide Input To EBSA

The proposed changes to the definition of investment advisor is one of many steps that EBSA is taking to tighten the regulations implementing ERISA’s fiduciary requirements and to enforce the protections of ERISA. The proposal to expand the conditions that providing investment advice regarding retirement plan assets will trigger the fiduciary protections of ERISA is designed to expand the reach of those regulations. Service providers involved in providing these or other related services generally will want to review and update their processes, documentation and training to manage new exposures likely to arise from these proposed regulations, while continuing to share feedback to EBSA and other rulemakers.

Service providers are not the only parties that need to update practices and provide input about these rules. Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, participants and beneficiaries also are impacted. Employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries and others need to anticipate and respond effectively to the inevitable efforts by providers of investment advice and other services to avoid or shift liability. Parties securing or relying on advice or services about investments or other responsibilities should:

Carefully, prudently conduct a documented investigation and critical analysis of existing and proposed advisors and other service providers credentials, analysis, performance, contract, recommendations and other conduct;
Carefully review contracts and other materials and secure appropriate constractual and other safeguards;
Require indemnification, insurance and other protections;
Ensure that appropriate action is taken to appoint parties intended to perform fiduciary advisory or other services to manage risks
Secure and maintain appropriate fiduciary and other liability insurance coverage;
Carefully conduct an appropriate, well-documented prudent review of performance, credentials and other relevant factors on a regular basis to preserve ongoing evidence of prudence; and
Other appropriate safeguards to manage risks and liabilities.

To help guard and position themselves to defend against fiduciary exposures plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally. For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your wage and hour 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 Borzi Tells House Committee Current Fiduciary Regs Flawed; Must Fix Loopholes In Investment Advisor Definition To Protect Plans | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Union | Tagged: 404, Director Liability, embezzlement, ERISA, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Responsibility, Officer Liability, Officers & Directors Liability, Owner Liability, Plan Sponsor Liability, Service Provider Liability, tpa | 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

Recap of IRS Employee Plans 2011 1st Quarter Guidance

April 10, 2011

Keeping on top of the employee plan guidance published by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other relevant agencies can be critical to efforts of plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and other service provider’s ability to anticipate plan design or other actions needed to maintain compliance or manage other concerns. The following is a recap of the more significant the IRS Employee Plan guidance published by the IRS between January 1 and March 31, 2011.

Notice 2011-33, 2011-19 I.R.B.: Updates for the corporate bond weighted average interest rate for plan years beginning in April 2011; the 24-month average segment rates; the funding transitional segment rates applicable for April 2011; and the minimum present value transitional rates for March 2011.
Notice 2011-22, 2011-12 I.R.B. 557: Updates for the corporate bond weighted average interest rate for plan years beginning in March 2011; the 24-month average segment rates; the funding transitional segment rates applicable for March 2011; and the minimum present value transitional rates for February 2011.
Announcement 2011-21, 2011-12 I.R.B. 567: This announcement designates Form 8955-SSA, Annual Registration Statement Identifying Separated Participants With Deferred Vested Benefits, as the form to be used to satisfy the reporting requirements of §6057(a) of the Code for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and sets forth the due dates for filing the form for the 2009 plan year and subsequent plan years. .
Notice 2011-19, 2011-11 I.R.B. 550: This notice provides guidance regarding when securities of the employer are readily tradable on an established securities market or readily tradable on an established market for purposes of certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to employer securities held by certain qualified retirement plans. .
Announcement 2011-16, 2011-7 IRB 500: This announcement corrects a typographical error in Rev. Rul. 2011-3.
Rev. Rul 2011-7, 2011-10 I.R.B.: This revenue ruling provides guidance clarifying how the section 403(b) plan termination provisions apply. .
Announcement 2011-8, 2011-5 IRB 446: This announcement corrects an error in Rev. Proc. 2011-8 in the user fee schedule that applies to a non-mass submitter of a master or prototype (M&P) plan.
Notice 2011-13, 2011-9 I.R.B. 529: Updates for the corporate bond weighted average interest rate for plan years beginning in February 2011; the 24-month average segment rates; the funding transitional segment rates applicable for February 2011; and the minimum present value transitional rates for January 2011.
Notice 2011-7, 2011-5 I.R.B. 437: Updates for the corporate bond weighted average interest rate for plan years beginning in January 2011; the 24-month average segment rates; the funding transitional segment rates applicable for January 2011; and the minimum present value transitional rates for December 2010.
Notice 2011-3, 2011-2 IRB 263: The notice provides guidance on the special rules relating to funding relief for single-employer defined benefit pension plans (including multiple employer defined benefit pension plans) under the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare. Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 (PRA 2010), Pub. L. No. 111-192.
Rev. Rul. 2011-3, 2011-4 I.R.B. 326: The covered compensation tables under Code §401 for the year 2011 are provided to determine contributions to defined benefit plans and permitted disparity.
Rev. Proc. 2011-4, 2011-1 I.R.B. 123: Annual EP/EO revenue procedure on letter rulings.
Rev. Proc. 2011-5, 2011-1 I.R.B. 167: Annual EP/EO revenue procedure on technical advice.
Rev. Proc. 2011-6, 2011-1 I.R.B. 195: Annual EP determination letter revenue procedure.
Rev. Proc. 2011-8, 2011-1 I.R.B. 237: Annual EP/EO revenue procedure on user fees.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

If you need assistance in accessing, assessing or auditing, updating or defending your employee benefit or compensation arrangements and practices in response to this recent guidance 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 Recap of IRS Employee Plans 2011 1st Quarter Guidance | Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Qualification | Tagged: 401(k) Plan, 403(b) Plan, employee benefit plan, Employee Plan, IRS, plan qualification, Qualified Plan, retirement plan, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities

April 4, 2011

Mitigate Risk With Appropriate Prevention, Monitoring & Response

Executives, board members, and other business leaders of companies providing health, 401(k) or other employee benefits under plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) should heed a series of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders and lawsuits of the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) as important reminders of the potential personal liability exposures executives can may face if their company’s benefit programs are not appropriately maintained and administered.

Recent Enforcement Actions, Changing Regulations Highlight Fiduciary Risks

On March 29, 2011, the Labor Department sued the owner of Eyeglass Factory, Inc. (EGF), Stephen Schaffer, for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to ensure that EGF timely forwarded health plan contributions collected from employees to pay health plan contributions to the plan and failing to ensure that he and other plan fiduciaries and service providers were bonded in accordance with ERISA’s fidelity bond requirements.[i] The Labor Department suit charges that from July 1, 2000 to October 1, 2000, Schaffer and EGF withheld and failed to forward to the health plan contributions deducted from employee pay for health insurance coverage and contributions made to the flexible benefit plan sponsored by EGF from January 1, 2000 to December 4, 2000. The employees’ paycheck withholdings were commingled with the company’s general assets and used for its general operating expenses. The Labor Department is asking the court to order that Schaffer and other defendants make restitution to the plan for the misapplied contributions, including lost opportunity costs, to correct prohibited transactions and to appoint an independent fiduciary to oversee the plans once Schaffer is removed as the plan fiduciary.

The Schaffer suit follows the Labor Department’s successful prosecution of a breach of fiduciary duty action against Larry Lauterback, the president and former owner of a Minnesota Cement Company, for his role in allowing his construction company to commingle with company assets and divert to company use employee health and 401(k) contributions withheld from employee’s pay. In Solis v. Larry Lauterback, [ii] the District Court ordered Lauterback to restore $17,273.18 in unremitted employee contributions and lost opportunity costs to the company’s health and dental plan, and $747.20 in unremitted employee contributions to the company’s 401(k) plan and enjoins Lauterback from serving or acting as a fiduciary or service provider to any employee benefit plan for three years.. The order followed the entry of a consent judgment against Lauterback and the plan sponsor, Slate Cement, Inc., for failure to remit employee contributions, failure to forward employee contributions to medical and dental providers, co-mingling employee contributions of the general assets and using those assets for company operations.

The Schaffer and Lauterback actions taken in March, 2011 are only the most recent in a series of enforcement actions taken against business executives, board members, plan vendors and others for their role in committing or failing to take prudent steps to prevent or redress alleged misconduct relating to the maintenance, administration and funding of various employee benefit programs regulated by ERISA. In recent months and years, the Labor Department has filed several lawsuits against business executives and businesses for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. While misuse of employee contributions by plan sponsors is a common focus of many of these actions, plan sponsors, plan service providers and members of their management with discretionary authority or responsibility over plan assets or administration or the election of those appointed to administer those responsibilities often arise out of the failure or these individuals to take prudent steps to prevent, monitor or address misconduct by other plan fiduciaries or service providers.[iii]

Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and their management should anticipate these risks and their attendant responsibilities will continue to rise as the Labor Department moves forward to adopt and implement revisions and enhancements to its fiduciary regulations such as those provided for in the new “Interim Final Regulation Relating to Improved Fee Disclosure for Pension Plans” scheduled to take effect in July, 2011 and the Proposed Regulation on the “Definition of the Term Fiduciary” published by the Labor Department in July and October, 2010 respectively.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department enforcement activities highlight the longstanding and ongoing policy of aggressive investigation and enforcement of alleged misconduct by companies, company officials, and service providers in connection with the maintenance, administration and funding of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. In its Fiscal Year 2010, the Labor Department closed 3,112 civil investigations, of which 2,301 (73.94%) resulted in monetary recoveries or other corrective action. The Labor Department referred 264 cases for civil litigation and filed 128 civil lawsuits. Meanwhile on the criminal side, the Labor Department closed 281 criminal investigations and obtained indictments against 96 people.

In addition to prosecutions brought by the Labor Department, companies and individuals that exercise discretion and control of the administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA also may be sued personally by participants and beneficiaries for breach of fiduciary under ERISA. A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record and existing precedent makes clear that where the Labor Department perceives that a plan sponsor or its management fails to take appropriate steps to protect plan participants, the Labor Department will aggressively pursue enforcement regardless of the size of the plan sponsor or its plan, or the business hardships that the plan sponsor may be facing.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers & Their Management Should Act To Manage Exposures

Given these exposures, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

To help guard and position themselves to defend against these and other exposures, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally. For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

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

[i] Chao v. Stephen Schaffer, the Eyeglass Factory, Inc., No O2-CV-60197, as announced in EBSA Release No. 11-341-CHI (March 29, 2011).

[ii] Solis v. Larry Lauterback, as announced in EBSA Release No 11-322-CHI (March 14, 2011).

[iii] See, e.g. Chao v. Associated Plan Administrators, as announced in EBSA Release No. 07-1265-BOS/BOS 2007-298 (October 16, 2007); Chao v. Starkey, as announced in EBSA Release No. 05-747-ATL (May 2, 2005); Chao v. Perry., as announced in EBSA Release BOS 2002-054 (March 21, 2002); Chao v. Mabry, as announced in EBSA Release No. 160 (March 20, 2002). See also, e.g., Baker v. Kingsley, 2006 WL 2027606 (N.D.Ill.2007); In Re Enron Corp Securities Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, 284 F.Supp. 511 (S.D.Tex. 2003); Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996); Brink v. DeLesio, 496 F. Supp. 1350 (D.Md. 1980).

Comments Off on Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Union | Tagged: 404, Director Liability, embezzlement, ERISA, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Responsibility, Officer Liability, Officers & Directors Liability, Owner Liability, Plan Sponsor Liability, Service Provider Liability, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Avoiding Liability For Another’s Health Plan Fraud

February 25, 2011

TPA’s Embezzlement Guilty Plea Reminds Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers To Ensure Fiduciaries, Administrators & Staff Prudently Selected, Monitored & Bonded

The guilty plea of an Ohio-based third-party administrator to embezzlement of $1 million in plan assets reminds employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors and members of their management participating in plan related activities, plan administrators and other plan fiduciaries and plan service providers (“plan decision-makers”) of the importance of ensuring appropriate, well-documented credentialing and selection, oversight, auditing and bonding the individuals and companies acting as fiduciaries and others participating in administration of plans or their assets (“plan workforce members”) to minimize their potential exposure to potential personal liability as a result of the fraud under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Cox Prosecution Reflective DOL Readiness To Prosecute Parties For Misuse of Plan Monies & Other Plan Fraud

According to a February 23, 2011 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announcement, Rhonda Sue Irvin Cox, owner of Irvin Administrative Solutions LLC (IAS), pleaded guilty to the embezzlement of $1 million of retirement plan assets from client plans administered by IAS. The DOL reports that between January 2003 and April 2007, Cox plead guilty to using used her position with ISC to embezzle the funds from 12 of 59 plans for which IAS served as a third party administrator. Cox also pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements in documents required under ERISA to be kept and certified by the plans’ administrator. Scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011, Cox faces a maximum of five years in prison on each criminal count, a $250,000 fine and a special assessment. Cox is scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011.

The DOL and Justice Department have a long-standing record of aggressive investigation and prosecution of embezzlement or other fraud impacting health and other employee benefit plans. Their criminal and civil enforcement and prosecution record makes clear this commitment remains strong.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers May Face Civil Liability From When Others Defraud Their Plans

While plan decision-makers generally are aware that individuals defrauding health or other employee benefit plans risk criminal and civil prosecution, many fail to recognize their own potential civil liability exposures that may arise out of the fraudulent acts or other misconduct of another plan workforce member.

Embezzlement of plan assets is one of many acts of misconduct that can create potential fiduciary liability exposure for plan decision-makers under ERISA. Until confronted with potential fraud, misconduct or other misfeasance by a plan fiduciary, service provider or other plan workforce member, many plan decision-makers lack an adequate appreciation of the personal liability they may incur if they cannot demonstrate appropriate steps were taken to protect their health plan from this misconduct.

Under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules, embezzlement or other misuse of employee contributions or other plan assets as well as certain other misconduct or misfeasance by a plan fiduciary, service provider or other plan workforce member can create personal liability exposures for plan decision-makers with responsibility or discretionary authority over the selection, retention, or management of plan workforce members if the plan decision-maker cannot demonstrate appropriate steps were taken to select, monitor and bond the plan workforce and other prudent action was taken to prevent and redress the fraud. Accordingly, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, their management, and others serving as, or selecting, managing or retaining companies or individuals that participate in the handling of health plan assets or administration should act to strengthen their health plans and themselves against these exposures.

Risk Management Strategies & Tips

When embezzlement or other concern affecting their health plan arises, plan decision-makers concerned about protecting their health plans and themselves must act promptly in a carefully documented, prudent manner to investigate and respond to the concern. They should be prepared to present well-documented evidence of the scope and limits of their responsibility, authority, awareness, and potential for the selection, monitoring and oversight of the plan workforce member or others responsible for the performance of those actions, the adequacy of the bonding arrangements for the plan, and other efforts to prudently protect the plan before, during and after the discovery of the concern. While these and other steps can help strengthen the ability of a plan decision-maker to liability exposures that can result from the other plan workforce member’s embezzlement of plan assets or other misconduct, plan sponsors and plan decision-makers also should acquire suitable fiduciary and other liability insurance coverage and make other arrangements to help provide for the potential financial costs and other demands that are likely to arise in the event that it becomes necessary to investigate or redress fraud or other misconduct. Learn more here.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help investigating or responding to fraud or other misconduct affection a health or other employee benefit plan, dealing with an employee benefit plan investigation or enforcement action by the Labor Department, private plaintiffs or another public or private party, reviewing current or proposed health plan processes or procedures, or responding to other employee benefit, labor and employment or other related controls and practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

For more than 23 years, Ms. Stamer has counseled, represented and trained employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, plan administrators and fiduciaries, insurers and financial services providers, third party administrators, human resources and employee benefit information technology vendors and others privacy and data security, fiduciary responsibility, plan design and administration and other compliance, risk management and operations matters. In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer regularly counsels and helps clients to defend a broad range of clients about employee benefit plan fraud and other fiduciary responsibility concerns. Throughout her career, she has represented and served as special counsel to health and other employee benefit plans, plan sponsors, plan service providers, officers, directors and other management officials, bankruptcy trustees, debtors and creditors, and others in connection with health and other employee benefit plan fraud and other fiduciary responsibility and related investigations, prosecutions and other actions involving the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, Justice Department, state insurance and attorneys general, bankruptcy actions, and participant, beneficiary and vendor disputes. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other employee benefits, insurance and 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

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, 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 including:

Comments Off on Avoiding Liability For Another’s Health Plan Fraud | Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Malpractice, Professional Liability, Retirement Plans, Risk Management | Tagged: co-fiduciary liability, embezzlement, employee benefit, ERISA, Fiduciary Liability, fraud, Health Plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices

January 20, 2011

CALNET Inc. and two subcontractors providing language, intelligence and information technology services to the U.S. Army at Ft. Irwin, California have paid a combined total of $1,060,554 in back wages to settle claims they violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly pay for on-call time, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL) announced January 19, 2011. Highlighting the growing exposure employers generally face from the heightened Labor Department emphasis on overtime and other wage and hour law enforcement, .the settlement also demonstrates the significant risks that employers face from mischaracterizing or failing to properly pay for on-call, standby or other similar times required of non-exempt employees. Employers and others providing workforce staffing should review and tighten existing worker classification, timekeeping and classification, recordkeeping and other practices and take other steps to strengthen the defensibility of their practices.

CALNET FLSA Backpay Settlement

According to its January 19, 2011 settlement announcement, the DOL, a Wage and Hour Division investigation determined that prime contractor CALNET Inc. of Reston, Va., and subcontractors Acclaim Technical Services Inc. of Huntington Beach, Calif., and McNeil Technologies of Springfield, Va., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) by not properly compensating workers for all on-call time, resulting in overtime violations. The employers also were found to be in violation of FLSA recordkeeping requirements for failing to maintain proper records of the number of hours worked by employees and the compensation they were paid.

The three companies have paid their employees a total of $1,060,554 in back wages owed for the period between October 2008 and October 2010. CALNET paid $676,698 to 597 employees. Acclaim Technical Services paid $234,311 to 177 employees. McNeil Technologies paid $149,545 to 91 employees.

Overtime & Other Wage & Hour Enforcement Risks Rising

Government contractors and other employers increasingly risk triggering significant liability by failing to properly characterize, track and pay for on-call and other compensable time in violation of the FSLA or other laws.

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates of pay, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employees must also maintain accurate time and payroll records. Improper classification of on-call or other hours that the FLSA requires an employer to treat as compensable exposes the employer to potential minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping violations.

Under the FLSA, on-call time becomes compensable when the on-call conditions are so restrictive or the calls to duty so frequent that the employee cannot effectively use on-call time for personal purposes under the facts and circumstances.

Employers wearing rose tinted glasses when making wage and hour worker classification or compensable time determinations tend to overlook the significance of the burden of proof they can expect to bear should their classification be challenged. Under the FSLA and applicable state wage and hour laws, employers generally bear the burden of proving that they have properly paid their employees in accordance with the FLSA. Additionally, the FLSA and most applicable state wage and hour laws typically mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records. Since the burden of proof of compliance generally rests upon the employer, employers should take steps to ensure their ability to demonstrate that they have properly paid non-exempt employees in accordance with applicable FLSA and state wage and hour mandates and that employees not paid in accordance with these mandates qualify as exempt from coverage under the FLSA.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of appropriate corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and recordkeeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Reengineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

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 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. 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, Ms. Stamer frequently has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance 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, Inc.™

Comments Off on $1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices | Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, wage & hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Update Employment Practices To Manage Genetic Info Discrimination Risks Under New EEOC Final GINA Regulations

November 9, 2010

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued final regulations (“Final Regulations”) implementing the employment provisions (Title II) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, joint labor-management committees, and others impacted by GINA should carefully review and update their hiring and background check, sick and family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with the updated guidance provided by the Final Regulations to avoid liability under new GINA’s rules governing genetic information collection, use, protection and disclosure

Effective since November 21, 2009, Title II of GINA prohibits employers of 15 or more employees from discriminating in employment based on genetic information and restricts the acquisition and disclosure of genetic information by covered employers and certain other parties.

Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Under GINA, employees and individuals can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws.

Meanwhile, Title I of GINA prohibits group health plans and health insurers from discriminating in eligibility or premium based on genetic information and requires these plans and insurers to protect the privacy of genetic information (Title I) for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.

When assessing potential GINA risks and exposures, employers and others covered by its provisions must exercise care not to overlook or underestimate the genetic information collected or possessed by their organizations and the risks attendant to collecting or using this information. Many employers will be surprised by the breadth of the depth of “genetic information.” Because of GINA’s broad definition of “genetic information,” its provisions create potential liability concerns for a surprisingly wide range of employment and health plan practices.

The Final Regulations published today implement the employment discrimination rules of GINA Title II. The EEOC previously published proposed regulations interpreting Title II of GINA in March, 2009. Concurrent with its release of the Final Regulations, the Commission also issued two question-and-answer documents on the final GINA regulations. For links to today’s guidance and more details, see here.

Failing to properly address GINA compliance could expose employers to substantial risk. Violation of the employment provisions of Title II subjects an employer to potentially significant civil judgments like those that generally are available for race, sex, and other federal employment discrimination claims covered by the Civil Rights Act. Accordingly, employers and others who have not already done so should act quickly to review and update their policies and procedures to manage their new compliance and liability exposures under GINA. Employers and others covered by GINA also should assess their leave and other records and practices for data that could be considered genetic information and take appropriate steps to safeguard this information to comply with the confidentiality, nondiscrimination and anti-retaliation rules of GINA, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other applicable laws.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance evaluating or defending existing or proposed practices under GINA or with other workforce, employee benefit, compensation, 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.

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising and representing employers, health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about employment, employee benefit, compensation, and a wide range of other performance, legal and operational risk management practices and concerns. As a part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with client to manage risks and defend practices under GINA, the ADA and a wide range of employment discrimination, privacy and other laws. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on GINA and other employment and employee benefit risk management practices and concerns for the ABA, World At Work, SHRM, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. 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 learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

Other Resources & Developments

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

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 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 click here.

Comments Off on Update Employment Practices To Manage Genetic Info Discrimination Risks Under New EEOC Final GINA Regulations | Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Privacy, Risk Management, Union | Tagged: ADA, EEOC, Emloyment Discrimination, Employment, GINA, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Proposes To Expand Investment Related Services Giving Rise to ERISA Fiduciary Status As Investment Fiduciary

October 21, 2010

The U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) today published a Proposed Regulation that would expand the circumstances when individuals giving investment advice to an employee benefit or employee benefit plan or individual retirement account participant for purposes of the fiduciary definition of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) § 3(21) and the prohibited transaction provisions of Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 4975(e)(3)(B).

If adopted as proposed, the Proposed Regulation would broaden the persons considered fiduciaries based on their provision of investment related advice or services to plans, participants or beneficiaries. Additionally, the restatement of these standards also likely will necessitate that both plan fiduciaries and providers of these services tighten agreements and other practices and procedures governing the engagement and delivery of services in order to maintain or protect desired allocations of fiduciary responsibility over these activities.

The deadline for individuals and organizations to comment on the proposed rule is January 19, 2011. Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes should assess the potential implications of the rule and timely submit any comments or concern to the EBSA by this date.

To learn more about the Proposed Rule and its implications, see the more detailed article here.

If your organization needs assistance to evaluate or respond to the Proposed Regulation or reviewing, updating, administering or defending your employee benefit, human resources, compensation or internal control and risk management procedures, documentation, or policies or procedures, 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

Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, 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, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally recognized for her extensive work helping clients develop, implement and defend innovative, practical, legally defensible solutions to their particular health and other employee benefit, employment and insurance needs. Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising and representing employer, association and other plan sponsors, health and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, plan administrators, consultants, vendors, outsourcers, insurers, governments and others about health plan and product design; administration, legal and operational risk management, vendor and fiduciary credentialing, managed care and vendor contracting, cost-containment, documentation, public policy, enforcement, privacy, technology, litigation and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, HCCA, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. 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 learn more about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs and publications, see here or contact Ms. Stamer.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on DOL Proposes To Expand Investment Related Services Giving Rise to ERISA Fiduciary Status As Investment Fiduciary | Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Qualification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

August 26, 2010

The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) generally mandates that all group and individual health plans and policies comply with these mandates no later than the first plan or policy year beginning after September 22, 2010 unless the plan or policy qualifies as a “grandfathered plan” under the Affordable Care Act. Employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators of all federally-regulated employment-based health plans should move quickly to update plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, decisional criteria, investigation and decision-making documentation, and claims and appeals-related notification and other communications to comply with a series of new Federal guidance governing health plan claims and appeals published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2010 as further supplemented by additional “safe harbor” external review procedures published in the Federal Register today (August 26, 2010) (collectively the ACA Appeals Rules”).

Although the ACA Appeals Rules technically apply only to non-grandfathered plans, Agency commentary about existing Labor Department health plan claims and appeals procedures published along with the ACA Appeals rules sends a strong signal that the adequacy of all health plan claims and appeals procedures is warranted. As many health plan sponsors and health insurers are deciding that compliance with Affordable Care Act mandates is more cost effective than meeting the conditions that federal regulations require for a health plan to maintain grandfathered plan status, most group health plans and policies will need to be updated to comply with these new rules quickly. Even if a plan qualifies as a grandfathered plan, however, comments contained included the preamble to the July 23, 2010 guidance and recent court decisions send a strong signal that a review and update of existing claims and appeals procedures and practices is warranted. Read more.

For assistance to review and update your health or other employee benefit claims and appeals or other terms, processes, notices and communication or other processes and procedures, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

Learn More About Affordable Care Act Mandates: Order Recording of August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update”

Details of recently released guidance about federal health plan rules applicable to employment-based health plans under the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulations were among the topics covered in a “2010 Health Plan Update” internet broadcast briefing on Tuesday, August 24 2010. For more information about this briefing, see here. If you are interested in purchasing a recording of this briefing, e-mail here.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance updating your heath care program documentation, policies or procedures in response to these or other requirements or with other employee benefit, insurance or human resources matters, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, 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 and other employee benefit 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, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. 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 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.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, appeals procedures, Claims, Claims Procedures, ERISA, external review, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, internal review, self-insured | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rite Aid Pays $1 Million HIPAA Privacy Settlement As OCR Tightens HIPAA Regulations

August 3, 2010

Drug store chain Rite Aid Corporation and its 40 affiliated entities (Rite Aid) will pay $1 million to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. Although targeting a health care provider, employers, health plan sponsors, administrators, and service providers should recognise the the Rite Aid settlement as a strong reminder of the importance of reviewing and tightening their own human resources, employee benefits, adn other policies and processes to better safeguard protected health information, personal financial information and other sensitve data.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights announcement of the HIPAA resolution agreement with Rite Aid and the concurrent negotiation of a separate consent order of potential FTC Act violations between Rite Aid and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) follows HHS’ announcement of proposed changes to its HIPAA Privacy Rules and associated penalties in response to changes enacted under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act). The Rite Aid settlement and the proposed Privacy Rule changes illustrate the growing penalty risks that health plans, health care providers, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) face for violating the Privacy Rules. Read more details.

Additionally, the Rite Aid decision also serves as a reminder to employers, health plans and their administrators, insurers and finance and finance departments to tighten their controls over the use, access and disposal of sensitive information. A walk through of almost most employee benefit, human resources and finance department typically reveals that at any given time a wide range of personal health and other sensitve information is handled and disposed of in a manner that leaves it open to improper or unnecessary use or disclosure. Additionally, while situations like those in Rite Aid and CVS draw big press, Secret Service, FBI, DOL and other statistics show that most wrongful access and damage comes from the improper use of access of information gained through credentials as an employee, contractor or customer. Rite Aid, CVS, and other HIPAA, FTC and personal identity breach statistics, settlements and judgments are a reminder to all of the advisability of cleaning up their policies and controls to better protect this data.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance updating or defending your privacy, data security or other health plan design, documentation policies or procedures in response to these or other requirements or with other employee benefit, insurance or human resources matters, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, 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, Stamer continuously advises employers, health and other employee benefit 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, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Her extensive publications include numerous highly regarding works on HIPAA and other health plan matters published by the Bureau of National Affairs, the ABA, and others. 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 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.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Rite Aid Pays $1 Million HIPAA Privacy Settlement As OCR Tightens HIPAA Regulations | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Medicare Part D, Risk Management | Tagged: Data Security, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Privacy, Privacy Rules, Rite Aid, Security Rules, Security Standards | 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

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[*] 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. Register here for a registration fee of $150.00[†] per participant.

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.

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

[*] 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

Stamer Speaks June 9 On “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” In Houston

May 19, 2010

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications for Employers, Health Plans and Employee Benefits Practitioners” at the June 9, 2010 meeting of Houston WEB. The program is scheduled for Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at the DoubleTree Guest Suites, 5353 Westheimer, Houston, Texas from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 pm.

Narrowly passed by Congress in March after a year of contentious debate, the comprehensive health care reform legislation imposes a complex array of reforms impacting employment based health plans, employers, and the insurers and other vendors and administrators of these programs. Ms. Stamer will explore key elements of these reforms impacting employers and employment based health coverage and their implications for employers, employment based health plans, and employee benefits and other attorneys providing advice about these arrangements.

To register or for more information about this event, see here. If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other employee benefit, compensation or labor and employment concerns, contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for assistance at (469) 767-8872 or 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 23 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.

As a core focus of her practice, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other service providers, insurers, and other clients on health benefit program and product design, documentation, administration, compliance, risk management, and public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts training and speaks extensively on these and related concerns for the ABA, the Bureau of National Affairs and many other organizations. Please join us for what promises to be a most interesting discussion

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 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. Her insights on these and other matters appear in Managed Care Executive, Modern Health Care, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, MDNews, Kentucky Physician, and many other national and local publications.

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 updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks June 9 On “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” In Houston | Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Payroll Tax, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Risk Management, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Insurer | 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 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, American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA), Health Care Compliance Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Harris County Medical Society, the Medical Group Management Association, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association, Harris County Medical Society, Medical Group Management Association, Society of Human Resources Management, 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. Her insights on these and other matters appear in Managed Care Executive, Modern Health Care, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, MDNews, Kentucky Physician, and many other national and local publications.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

Comments Off on CBO Raises Estimated Cost of Health Care Reforms As Employers, Health Plans Brace Costs Of Newly Effective & Impending Mandates | Affordable Care Act, ARRA, CHIP, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, GINA, H.R. 4872, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Leave, medical leave, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Military Leave, Payroll Tax, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, dependent coverage, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Insurer, Mental Health Parity, preexisting condition | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Join Project COPE: Help Develop Real Tools To Meaningfully Empower Patients & Improve Health Care Access, Affordability & Quality

May 15, 2010

With all the recent debate about health care policy reforms, it is important to keep the focus on the practical needs of patients and their families in dealing with an illness or disability, and simple steps that health care providers, employers, insurers and other payers, churches and other community organizations, and regular people can do to meaningfully help patients and their families effectively access and pay for care and meet other related challenges attendant to illness and disabilities.

No easy, one-size fits all cure exists to help patients and their families deal with illness or disability. Paying for care is only a small part of the health care challenge for any patient and his or her family. The good news is that health treatment and disease management advances increasingly are converting once deadly illnesses and disabilities into chronic conditions. The challenge is that patients living with these conditions often survive with ongoing (often expensive) medical treatments, work-life adjustments and other continuous partial but imperfect fixes that come at great financial, productivity and personal costs to themselves, their families and society. The government and its public policies can’t change this anymore than the patients, families, employers, friends and communities that live and deal with these patients. Indeed, the process of reform and the confusion it will foster is likely to create new complications in the upcoming years.

Consequently, to make any real and meaningful difference in the empowerment of patients and the mitigation of the financial and other challenges that patients and their families, health care providers, employer and other business and community leaders, health plans, insurers and others experience in dealing with ill or disabled person starts with recognition of basic realities of illness and disabilities and pursuing the many small practical opportunities to mitigate these challenges, including the following:

No One Easy Fix; Just Many Small Ones

Being old or being sick (or having a loved one who is) stinks. Not everyone was born with a BMW for a body and even some BMW’s are lemons. Even for a car, there isn’t always a clear “evidence based” answer to the unavoidable “why me/us” questions every patient and their family must face. However, the answers to these and other tough questions often are must less clear and more intractable for patients and their families:

What’s wrong with this body?
Can it be fixed and if so, how do I fix it?
If it can’t be fixed, what do I do?
How do I pay for the fix? How do I find the money and other resources?
How do we keep working and keep pursuing the cure at the same time?
I am scared, lonely, confused, tired, hurting, alone, uneducated, unemployed, etc.

Money only can do so much to fix or mitigate the experience of being ill, old or disabled and there isn’t enough money to pay for all the fixes that exist for those people with broken or aging body parts. While dollars play a critical role in a patient’s ability to access certain resources, it can only partially answer these questions. All patients and their families still struggle to deal with these intractable questions.

Communication & Understanding Key Tools

The best way to get Americans to make better choices about the health care they choose is to provide better communications and other tools to empower them with improved understanding needed to make better choices and better cope. Misunderstanding and miscommunications in the system fuel much pain and inefficiency.

When families and patients get good information that indicates that the $20,000 spent for a procedure will only cause a lot of suffering and expense to extend a life already suffering for another 48 hours, they usually chose quality of life over length of life.
Studies show that physicians and the RNs working with them agree in less than 70 percent of the times about the care ordered and how to administer it. Communication elsewhere among health care providers further erodes cost effectiveness and quality.
Government regulation and the tension that results from regulation and practices that break up health care teams makes this worse contributes to this problem.

Better communication and understanding between health care providers and the patients and their families and friends that help the patients will improve quality and efficiency of care.

All Americans need to be taught basic communication and coping skills to be better and more responsible health care patients, and effective health care buddies for their family and friends.
Providers need to communicate effectively with patients, family members, payers and each other. Patients and families need to learn to take responsibility to insist on answers to the questions they have that are necessary to meet their care needs.
Health plans, insurers and other payers need to communicate effectively with patients and their families, as well as health care providers about what coverage is being purchased, what is and is not covered, what must be done to qualify for coverage, care choices affecting coverage, and the availability of other alternatives when coverage is limited or not available.

Demographic Realities Ensure Inadequacy Of Funding

The aging population means that the gap between patients that need money for care and the available dollars to pay for care will continue to grow unless care is rationed in some way that limits or denies certain care to some ill, disabled or aging people. Decisions about rationing by necessity require individual specific, personal decision-making. Just because the most health care dollars are spent in the last months of life doesn’t mean that these dollars are necessarily wasted. The question should be what quality of life was realized for the dollars spent. This is a qualitative decision that is of necessity highly personal for each patient and his or her family. It cannot be fully accounted for or decided based on actuarial and accounting curves. Many old and sick people are extraordinary functional, valuable and important to someone.

Personal Responsibility For Self & Neighbor Best Investment

The most overlooked opportunities for quality and cost improvements rest 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.

Caring for ourselves, our families, our friends and others in our community is our right, our privilege and our job. 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 for ourselves, our loved ones, our friends and Americans generally by stop waiting for someone else to do it. Noone is better qualified to care about your loved ones than you. Do what you can and celebrate what you can do. 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 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.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can access information about how you can arrange for 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 If you found these updates of interest, you also 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. 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. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources

For important information concerning 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 Join Project COPE: Help Develop Real Tools To Meaningfully Empower Patients & Improve Health Care Access, Affordability & Quality | Absenteeism, Affordable Care Act, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, medical leave, Pandemic, Public Policy, Risk Management, Safety, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Unemployment, COBRA Premium Subsidy Temporarily Extended As Congress Mulls Passing Longer Relief

April 16, 2010

April 16, 2010

The Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (H.R. 4851) signed into law yesterday (April 15, 2010) extends federal unemployment benefits and the COBRA premium subsidy program while Congress continues to debate. While Congress continues to debate whether to adopt a longer term extension of these programs, employers and group health plans will have to scramble again to send out required notifications and handle other details required to comply with this latest temporary extension to these benefits. Transitional relief included in the bill requires action again by group health plans and/or sponsoring employers, who again must tell former employees and their dependents of the retroactively granted relief.

Among other things, H.R. 4851:

Extends the period unemployed individuals may file applications for Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) from April 5, 2010 to June 2, 2010
Extends from September 4, 2010 to November 6, 2010 the period which individuals may claim and be paid EUC and also the period that individuals can qualify for the Federal Additional Compensation (FAC), (the extra $25 per weekly benefit amount on state and federal unemployment compensation)
Extends the period the federal government will provide 100% reimbursement for weeks of regular federal extended benefit payments from April 5, 2010 to June 2, 2010, with the state option to continue the benefit extension period from September 4, 2010 to November 6, 2010
Extends the eligibility period for the COBRA health insurance 65% subsidy for qualifying individuals who have lost employment based health coverage due to an employment loss through May 31, 2010 and provides transition relief for individuals who lost their jobs between March 31, 2010 and April 15, 2010

Yesterday’s short-term extension is the latest in a series of short-term emergency extensions of special unemployment benefit and COBRA premium subsidies originally enacted in February, 2009 under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 1990. Even as it passed the short-term extension of this relief in H.R. 4851, Congress continues to consider legislation that would provide for a longer extension of unemployment and COBRA premium subsidy benefits. H.R. 4213, for instance, would extend benefits through the end of 2010.

The COBRA premium subsidy and other recent employment and employee benefit developments will be among the topics that attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will be discussing during her upcoming “Legal Update on Employment Law” presentations at the “Barnstorm 2010: Creating an Effective Leaders-Tools of the Trade” management training that the Texas Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration and Education (TSHHRAE) will be hosting for health industry human resources and other managers in five Texas cities between April 26 and April 30, 2010. For registration and other information about the Barnstorm Program, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for more than 22 years of work with health industry and other organizations on labor and employment, staffing and credentialing, employee benefits, performance management and discipline, compliance and internal controls, risk management, and public policy 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, 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, the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update, and Solutions Law Press Health Care Privacy & Technology Update, 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, American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA), Health Care Compliance Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Harris County Medical Society, the Medical Group Management Association, SHRM, 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, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s health care experience here, and employment experience here. Her insights on these and other matters appear in Managed Care Executive, Modern Health Care, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, MDNews, Kentucky Physician, and many other national and local publications.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

Comments Off on Unemployment, COBRA Premium Subsidy Temporarily Extended As Congress Mulls Passing Longer Relief | Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Payroll Tax, Restructuring, Risk Management, Tax, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” At May 5 Dallas Bar Association Meeting

March 22, 2010

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss “Health Care Reform: Implications for Employers, Health Plans and Employee Benefits Practitioners” at the May 5, 2010 meeting of Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits/Executive Compensation Section to be held from 12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m. in the Haynes & Boone Ballroom of Dallas Bar Association Belo Mansion located at 2101 Ross Avenue in Dallas, Texas.

Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice and former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Section, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for more than 22 years of work with employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other service providers, insurers, and other clients on health benefit program and product design, documentation, administration, compliance, risk management, and public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts training and speaks extensively on these and related concerns for the ABA, the Bureau of National Affairs and many other organizations. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

If you need assistance with evaluating or responding to this new legislation or other employee benefits, employment, compensation or other management concerns, wish to inquire about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; or your other preferred Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

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 Ms. Stamer here and learn more about other Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Stamer To Discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” At May 5 Dallas Bar Association Meeting | Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Payroll Tax, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

House Could Vote On Obama Health Care Reform Sunday

March 18, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Time is running out for Americans to make their health care reform views known to key Congressional decision-makers. The stage now appears to be set for the House of Representatives to vote as early as Sunday on the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), the latest version of health care reform backed by President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other key Congressional Democrats. The impending deadline means that Americans concerned about the potential outcome of the impending vote need to act quickly if they wish to attempt to influence the decision. For tips about sharing your input with Congress effectively, see Getting Your Health Care Reform Message Heard By Key Congressional Leaders.

Developments Today Start Clock Running For Vote

On Thursday, March 18, 2010, two key developments set the stage for a vote on H.R. 4871 as early as Sunday:

The House Rules Committee posted the text of H.R. 4872 on its website; and
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered its scoring of H.R 4872 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The delivery of CBO scoring started the clock running on the 72 hour mandatory period between the release of the CBO scoring and any final vote on the bill. This means the House could vote on H.R. 4872 as early as Sunday, March 21.

If passed by the House, H.R. 4872 would make sweeping changes to the U.S. health care system impacting virtually every American patient, health care provider, employer and taxpayer. To learn the facts about these proposed changes, read the full text of H.R. 4872 here.

According to the CBO, H.R. 4872 will cost $940 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured people. To learn more specifics about these CBO cost and other determinations, review the CBO scoring here.

This Is Only The Beginning: Stay Involved

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the President’s proposal or some other version of health care reform passes this week, Congress already has and will continue to consider other legislation impacting health care reform. This reality is demonstrated by Congressional actions recently taken on the COBRA premium subsidy extension, Medical reimbursement for physicians, continuing federal efforts to develop and implement federal health care quality and technology standards, and other legislative, regulatory and enforcement actions taken while public attention has been focused largely only on the broader health care reform debate.

Upcoming mid-term elections will significantly impact the nature and scope of these upcoming efforts. Perhaps even more significantly, the enactment of legislation is only a beginning point. The real meaning of these or other health care reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Monitoring and staying active in these ongoing processes provides a critical opportunity to continue to monitor your issues and provide input to shape how they are addressed.

To help stay informed about health industry and other developments and join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals, concerned Americans are invited to join the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin and registering to receive these updates here.

If you need assistance evaluating or formulating comments on the proposed reforms contained in the House Bill or on other health industry matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com or 214.270.2402.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting employers, health industry, and health insurance clients and others about a diverse range of health care, employee benefit, and employment policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

Former Chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and currently Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, a Council Representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Association, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for more than 22 years work with health care providers, managed care and other payers, employers, governments and other clients on health care, employee benefit, and other concerns. From her extensive involvement with federal and state legislative and regulatory health, pension and other reforms in the U.S. to her involvement as a lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization legislation, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes significant experience working with clients domestically on key health care and other public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts training and speaks extensively on these and related concerns. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

You can review other publications and resources and additional information about the experience of Ms. Stamer here and learn more about other Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information concerning 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 House Could Vote On Obama Health Care Reform Sunday | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: DME, Employers, ERISA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Pharma, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Speak About TPA & Other Plan Services Agreement Contracting Strategies For Managing Risks & Improving Effectiveness At 2010 Great Lakes Benefits Conference

March 13, 2010

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair and Solutions Law Press Publisher Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss “TPA & Other Plan Services Agreements- Managing Risks & Improving Effectiveness” At 2010 Great Lakes Benefits Conference to be held at the Wyndham Chicago Hotel on June 16-17, 2010.

Growing regulatory, fiduciary and other compliance risks magnify the importance of the careful negotiation and documentation of third party administration and other plan-related service agreements for plans, plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and service providers. Careful credentialing, negotiation and documentation of administrative and other services relationships plays an increasingly key role in the ability of plan sponsors, plans, fiduciaries and service providers to allocate and efficiently manage plan operations, meet compliance obligations, and allocate and manage fiduciary and other legal risks.

Ms. Stamer’s workshop will examine key concerns like how administrative services contract terms, plan terms, the parties of actions and other factors help determine which parties are exposed to fiduciary and other liabilities; who is responsible for fiduciary, administrative, reporting and disclosure, bonding, indemnification and other responsibilities; and terms and processes that may help parties manage their relationships and legal risks by exploring some of the common issues and concerns that need to be considered when entering into these contractual arrangements.

Co-hosted by the Internal Revenue Service and ASPPA, this two day Conference features presentations on regulatory, legislative, administrative and actuarial and other employee benefit issues lead by local, regional and national government representatives from the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor and nationally recognized employee benefit leaders from private industry. To register for the Conference or for additional information, see here.

Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice and former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for more than 22 years domestic work with employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other service providers, insurers, and other clients on employee benefit program and product design, documentation, administration, compliance, risk management, and public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts training and speaks extensively on these and related concerns. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

If you need assistance with vendor or other outsourcing contracts, or other employee benefits, employment, compensation or other management concerns, wish to inquire about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Labor & Employment Practice Chair at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; or your other preferred Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

Comments Off on Stamer To Speak About TPA & Other Plan Services Agreement Contracting Strategies For Managing Risks & Improving Effectiveness At 2010 Great Lakes Benefits Conference | CHIP, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Wellness Programs | Tagged: administrative services agreement, bonding, compliance, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Insurance, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, tpa, trustees | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Privacy Rule Changes & Posting of Breach Notices On OCR Website Signal New Enforcement Risks For Health Plans, Their Sponsors & Business Associates

February 23, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has begun disclosing on its website the employer and other health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) that report breaches of unsecured protected health information (UPIC) affecting more than 500 individuals as required by new rules enacted as part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). This posting of Covered Entities reporting breaches comes just days after these and other Covered Entities became subject on February 17, 2010 to a host of other tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under Privacy & Security Standards of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) also enacted as part of the HITECH Act. As failing to comply with the amended rules effective February 17, 2010 can trigger obligations under the Breach Regulations and other exposures, prompt action to manage risk under both the Breach Regulations and the revised HIPAA rules is critical to minimize Covered Entity and business associate exposures under both these rules. With criminal, administrative and civil prosecutions of such violations increasing and likely to expand, timely action to manage compliance and other risks is warranted. Health plans and their business associates also should prepare for increased awareness and oversight of the adequacy of their medical information safeguards as these disclosures and other enforcement actions heighten interest and awareness of employees and others in these rules.

Covered Entity Breach Notification Requirements

OCR posted the initial list of Covered Entities disclosing these breaches on its website for the first time yesterday (February 22, 2010) to comply with breach notification requirements imposed by Section 164.408 of the interim “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) published here.

The Breach Regulation requires Covered Entities subject to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals, OCR and certain other parties following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information occurring on or after September 23, 2009. The Breach Regulation implements new breach notification requirements added to HIPAA by Section 13402(e)(3) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). It and the posting of Covered Entities reporting breaches of protected health information are part of the ongoing implementation and enforcement of new and stricter personal health information privacy and data security requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under provisions of the HITECH Act and expanded remedies for violations signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

You can review the list of Covered Entities that have reported breaches on the OCR website here. Learn more about the Breach Regulation requirements here.

Broader & Stricter Medical Privacy Mandates Effective 2/17/210

Just last Wednesday (February 17, 2010) Covered Entities and their business associates also became subject to tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under amendments to HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Standards enacted by the HITECH Act. The changes that became effective on February 17, 2010 generally require that Covered Entities and their business associates make specific changes to update their written policies, operational procedures, privacy notices, business associate agreements, training, and other management procedures in several respects. For more details, see here.

While the HITECH Act gave Covered Entities and business associates a year to complete the necessary arrangements to comply with these HITECH Act changes, many Covered Entities and business associates have remain unnecessarily exposed under these new requirements by not completing or otherwise failing to adequately implement the necessary arrangements despite expanding liability exposures that can result from noncompliance. To mitigate these exposures, Covered Entities and their business associates should act quickly to review and update their policies, procedures, training, business associate and other services agreements, and other practices and procedures, as well as to implement the training, oversight, and other management necessary to comply with the HITECH Act changes and to mitigate other HIPAA risks.

Exposures Significant & Growing

Covered Entities and business associates failing to devote adequate attention and resources to managing HIPAA compliance and associated risks risk increasing peril. Aside from the potential implications that disclosures of violations may have on patients and others impacting their business, the legal risks of noncompliance for Covered Entities, business associates and others mishandling protected health information are real and growing.

Timely action to comply with the amended HIPAA requirements and Breach Regulations is important both to preserve critical trust in the business, to avoid triggering breach notifications that can undermine this trust and fuel legal complaints, and to avoid exposure to an expanding range of sanctions that can result when a violation occurs.

Amendments made under the HITECH Act have expanded the size and availability of remedies that can be imposed for HIPAA violations as well as the parties empowered to pursue these remedies. Wrongful use, access or disclosure of protected health information in violation of HIPAA subjects participating health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates and other workforce members and others to civil penalties, criminal prosecution and, since February 17, 2009, civil lawsuits brought by state attorneys general on behalf of citizens of their states whose HIPAA rights were violated. Since September 23, 2009, health plans and other HIPAA Covered Entities as well as their business associates also became obligated to provide breach notification under new mandates imposed by the HITECH Act. Coupled with increased enforcement emphasis by regulators, these expansions to HIPAA’s remedy provisions increase the risk that Covered Entities or business associates violating HIPAA face investigation and sanction. Furthermore, the wrongful use, access or disclosure of protected health information or other confidential information also increasingly is the basis of civil or criminal actions brought under a variety of other federal and state laws.

Expanded HIPAA & Other Federal Prosecutions & Remedies

The expanded requirements imposed under the Breach Regulation and the other HITECH Act changes that took effect on February 17, 2010 follow the implementation changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, when President Obama signed the HITECH Act into law. The HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s remedies significantly increase the risk that health plans and other Covered Entities and their business associates will face civil lawsuits, civil or criminal penalties or other consequences for violating HIPAA. Noncompliance with these and other HIPAA requirements subjects Covered Entities and business associates to civil penalties, criminal prosecution, civil damage awards under lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, and other legal remedies. In addition, timely update written policies, procedures, business associate agreements, training and documentation is imperative in order for Covered Entities and their business associates to fulfill their breach notification obligations under new rules enacted as part of the HITECH Act.

HITECH Amendments Expand Liability Exposures

The expanded risks stem in part from the HITECH Act’s amendments to HIPAA’s remedy provisions. Among other things, the HITECH Act amended HIPAA to:

Allow a State Attorney General to sue health plans or other Covered Entities, business associates or both that harm state citizens by committing HIPAA violations after February 16, 2009;
Expand the mandate by OCR to investigate violations and audit compliance with HIPAA;
Require Office of Civil Rights to impose civil sanctions against Covered Entities and business associates involved in violations of HIPAA in accordance with tightened standards added to HIPAA by the HITECH Act;
Revise the criminal sanctions that the Department of Justice can seek against Covered Entities, their business associates and others for violations of HIPAA; and
Amend HIPAA to make clear that HIPAA’s criminal sanctions also can imposed on business associates, workforce members and other persons that improperly use, access and disclose protected health information in violation of HIPAA.

State Attorney General Lawsuit Exposures

Covered Entities and their business associates now also need to be concerned about the potential that a state Attorney General may bring civil suit to remedy damages caused to state citizens by a breach of HIPAA.

The HITECH Act empowers a state attorney general to sue Covered Entities or business associates engaging in HIPAA violations that harms citizens of the state for statutory damages equal to the sum of the number of violations multiplied by 100 up to a maximum of $25,000 per calendar year plus attorneys fees and costs

A HIPAA civil lawsuit filed on January 13, 2010 demonstrates the willingness of at least some states to exercise the new authority created by the HITECH Act on February 17, 2009 to sue Covered Entities and business associates that violate HIPAA for civil damages.

On January 13, 2010 Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. (Health Net) for failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving 446,000 Connecticut enrollees and promptly notify consumers endangered by the security breach. The suit also names UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Oxford Health Plans LLC, who have acquired Health Net. The first attorney general enforcement action brought based on amendments made to HIPAA under the HITECH Act, Connecticut charges that Health Net violated HIPAA by failing to safeguard protected medical records and financial information on almost a half million Health Net enrollees in Connecticut then allowing this information to remain exposed for at least six months before notifying authorities and consumers.

Stepped Up Federal Enforcement

Even before the HITECH Act amendments, however, OCR and Department of Justice already were stepping up HIPAA investigation and enforcement. The Department of Justice has obtained a variety of criminal convictions against violators of HIPAA. See, e.g., 2 New HIPAA Criminal Actions Highlight Risks From Wrongful Use/Access of Health Information. Meanwhile, OCR also is emphasizing HIPAA enforcement. In February, 2009, for instance, OCR announced that CVS Pharmacies, Inc. would pay $2.25 million to resolve HIPAA charges. This announcement followed OCR’s announcement in July, 2008 that Providence Health Care would pay $100,000 to resolve HIPAA violation charges. OCR also has taken HIPAA enforcement actions against a broad range of other Covered Entities to redress HIPAA violations or other compliance concerns. To review examples of these other actions, see here. While not resulting in the significant payments involved in CVS or Providence, all Covered Entities involved in these and other enforcement actions or investigations have incurred significant legal and other defense costs, loss of community trust, or both.

In addition to these HIPAA-specific exposures, wrongful use, access or disclosure of medical information also can give rise to liability for health plans and other Covered Entities, business associates, employees and other members of their workforce and others improperly using, accessing or disclosing protected health information. Federal and state prosecutions may and increasingly do criminally prosecute individuals for improperly accessing or using medical or other personal information under a variety of other federal or state laws . See e.g., Cybercrime & Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA; NY AG Cuomo Announcement of 1st Settlement For Violation of NY Security Breach Notification Law; Woman Who Revealed AIDs Info Gets A Year. Additionally, State courts also increasingly are permitting individuals harmed by HIPAA violations to use HIPAA as the foundation of state law duties used to maintain state negligence, invasion of privacy, retaliation or other claims for damages. Read more here.

State Civil Lawsuits

Meanwhile, disgruntled employees or other business partners also increasingly raise alleged HIPAA misconduct as a basis of their legal complaints. For instance, private plaintiffs employed by Covered Entities also are increasingly pointing to HIPAA as the basis for their retaliation or wrongful discharge claims. See, e.g., Retaliation For Filing HIPAA Complaint Recognized As Basis For State Retaliatory Discharge Claim. Coupled with the HITECH Act changes, these and other enforcement actions signal growing potential hazards for Covered Entities and their business associates that fail to properly manage their HIPAA compliance obligations and risks.

Given these and other developments, Covered Entities and their business associates generally should resist the temptation to underestimate their potential HIPAA exposure for a variety of reasons. In fact, a number of factors demonstrate that the risks are significant and growing for Covered Entities, business associates and others that breach HIPAA’s mandates or otherwise inappropriately access protected health information.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Urged To Act Promptly To Manage Expanded HIPAA Risks & Obligations

As a consequence of these collective HITECH Act changes and growing HIPAA-related and other exposures, Covered Entities, their business associates and business associates generally will find it necessary or advisable among other things to:

Conduct well-documented due diligence within the scope of attorney-client privilege on their own practices and procedures;
Review the adequacy of the practices, policies and procedures of the Covered Entities, business associates, and others that may come into contact with protected health information;;
Renegotiate their service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance obligations of each party relating to for auditing compliance, investigating potential breaches; providing required breach notifications; specify leadership and required cooperation in the event of a breach, charge, or other concern; indemnification and other liability allocations; and other related matters;
Update policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility;
Conduct well-documented training as necessary to ensure that business associates and other members of the Covered Entity’s workforce understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, can detect potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand and are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reported suspected violations; and
Pursue appropriate liability and other protection as appropriate to improve their ability to demonstrate both their commitment to compliance and their realistic efforts to ensure that these commitments are both appropriately documented on paper and operationalized in performance.

As part of these compliance and risk management efforts, most Covered Entities and their business associates will find it advisable to devote significant attention to the business associate relationship and its associated business associate agreements. Proper management of the expanded compliance obligations and liability exposures created by the HITECH Act generally will necessitate that Covered Entities and their business associates focus significant attention on the reworking of their operating and contractual relationships including the definition of detailed procedures for monitoring, reporting, investigating, and resolving potential breaches or other compliance concerns.

Even before the impending HIPAA changes scheduled to take effect on February 17, 2010, a strong need for more detailed contracting and planning of these relationships already existed. Since the enactment of HIPAA, the practice of many Covered Entities and their business associates of appending generic “business associate” representations onto existing services contracts without specific tailoring and planning has created undesirable ambiguities in these agreements. Further updating and tailoring of these and other provisions of services agreements has become even more important over the past year in light of the new breach notification mandates that took effect under the HITECH Act in September, 2009, changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, and the impending extension by the HITECH Act to business associates of direct liability for compliance with HIPAA scheduled to occur on February 17, 2010.

These and other stepped up oversight and enforcement activities make it critical that all Covered Entities and their business associates update their policies and practices, conduct training, tighten their compliance and data breach monitoring processes, strengthen their internal controls and documentation, and take other steps to prepare to defend their actions under the newly strengthened Privacy Rules. Covered Entities and their business associates more than ever must ensure their ability to demonstrate to federal regulators the effectiveness of their HIPAA compliance efforts by both adopting the written policies and procedures required by HIPAA and continuously monitoring and administering these safeguards. Covered Entities should consider reviewing the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance practices taking into consideration the Corrective Action Plan, published OCR noncompliance and enforcement statistics, their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

For Assistance With Compliance Or Other Concerns

If your organization need advice or assistance in reviewing, updating, administering or defending its HIPAA or other privacy policies, practices, business associate or other agreements, notices or other related activities, consider contacting the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail here.

Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, training and presentations, and publications on privacy and security of health and other sensitive information in health and managed care, employment, employee benefits, financial services, education and other contexts.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years experience advising clients about health and other privacy and security matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer is the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010, as well as the author of “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of other highly regarded publications. She has continuously advises employers, health care providers, health insurers and administrators, health plan sponsors, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, schools, financial services providers, governments and others about privacy and data security, health care, insurance, human resources, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters. Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Other Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in information about upcoming programs to be presented by Ms. Stamer, acquiring a copy of a recording or materials from previous programs she has presented, or arranging training for your organization. For more information about these opportunities, contact Ms. Stamer directly.

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your organization need advice or assistance in reviewing, updating, administering or defending its HIPAA or other privacy policies, practices, business associate or other agreements, notices or other related activities, consider contacting Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A widely published author and speaker on HIPAA and other employee benefit and human resources related matters, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising health plans, their employer and other sponsors, health insurers, TPAs and other business associates and others about HIPAA and other health plan and privacy matters. Currently serving as both Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative and Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience assisting employers, insurers, plan administrators and fiduciaries and others to design, implement, draft and administer health and other employee benefit plans and to defend audits, litigation or other disputes by private parties, the IRS, Department of Labor, Office of Civil Rights, Medicare, state insurance regulators and other federal and state regulators. A nationally recognized author and lecturer, Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. 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 participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates that may be of interest include:

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Privacy Rule Changes & Posting of Breach Notices On OCR Website Signal New Enforcement Risks For Health Plans, Their Sponsors & Business Associates | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans & Business Associates Face 2/17 Deadline To Update Policies, Contracts & Procedures For HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes

February 15, 2010

Connecticut AG Lawsuit Highlights Expanding Civil Damage Exposure Risks Of Noncompliance

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

By Wednesday, February 17, 2010, employer and other health plans and health insurers (“covered entities”) and service providers performing functions on behalf of these entities (“business associates”) must begin complying with tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under Privacy & Security Standards of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). The changes scheduled to take effect February 17, 2010 are likely to require that health plans and their business associates update their written policies, operational procedures, privacy notices and business associate agreements in several respects.

While the HITECH Act gave covered entities and business associates a year to complete the necessary arrangements to comply with these impending HITECH Act changes, many health plans and business associates have not completed the necessary arrangements despite expanding liability exposures that can result from noncompliance. To mitigate these exposures, covered entities and their business associates should act quickly both to update their services agreements, plans and policies, practices, and procedures, and to implement the training, oversight, and other management procedures necessary to comply with the HITECH Act changes and to mitigate other HIPAA risks.

2/17/10 Deadline To Comply With HITECH Act HIPAA Amendments

On February 17, 2010, health plans and other covered entities and their business associates will become subject to the latest to take effect in a series of amendments to the HIPAA enacted under the HITEC Act. The new rules are part of a broader series of changes to HIPAA made by the HITECH Act that collectively both significantly expand the obligations of covered entities and their business associates to regarding the use, protection and disclosure of protected health information and the liability exposures that can result when covered entities or business associates violate these requirements.

The changes scheduled to take effect February 17, 2010 are likely to require that health plans and their business associates update their written policies, operational procedures, privacy notices and business associate agreements in several respects. For instance, effective February 17, 2010, the HITECH Act generally requires that covered entities and their business associates revise their written privacy policies, privacy notices and operating procedures:

To meet expanded requirements to honor individual’s requests for special restrictions on uses and disclosures of protected health information to health plans for payment purposes
To restrict protected health information disclosures to the minimum necessary required to accomplish otherwise allowable purpose;
To comply with new rules that require that the covered entity and its business associates treat any use, access or disclosure of any protected health information made for purposes of making communications about products or services as made for marketing, rather than operational, purposes which are prohibited by HIPAA except where HIPAA’s requirements are met;
To comply with new restrictions on certain fundraising communications made for operational purposes including expanded obligations to allow recipients to opt out of further fundraising communications;
To prohibit covered entities or business associates from selling protected health information without meeting the amended requirements of HIPAA that a valid HIPAA authorization from the subject of the information and specific reassurances from the purchaser concerning its subsequent use of the protected health information except as otherwise permitted by HIPAA;
To take into account these tightened restrictions on the use, access or disclosure of protected health information for purposes of complying with new HITECH Act breach notification requirements that took effect in September, 2009, which apply when a covered entity or its business associate knows or should know a breach of “unsecured protected health information” has occurred and for purposes of making the necessary changes in written policies and business associate agreements, training and operational procedures necessary to comply with these rules;
To directly require business associates comply with HIPAA’s requirements in the same manner as other covered entities and make it necessary or advisable that that service provider agreements between health plans and business associates be updated to reflect these and other changes to HIPAA; and
To implement the necessary written policy changes, notification updates, business associate agreement amendments, training, management oversight and other procedural changes necessary to demonstrate fulfillment with these requirements.

Noncompliance with these and other HIPAA requirements subjects covered entities and business associates to civil penalties, criminal prosecution, civil damage awards under lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, and other legal remedies. In addition, timely update written policies, procedures, business associate agreements, training and documentation is imperative in order for covered entities and their business associates to fulfill their breach notification obligations under new rules enacted as part of the HITECH Act.

Under the HITECH Act, health plans and other covered entities and their business associates have been obligated since September 23, 2009 to notify individuals who are the subject of protected health information, the Department of Health & Human Services and in some cases the media if and when a breach of “unsecured protected health information occurs. Failing to timely update written policies, procedures and training increases the likelihood that health plans, other covered entities or business associates will be obligated to provide breach notifications under these new rules, in addition to their otherwise applicable exposures under HIPAA.

HIPAA Enforcement & Liability Exposures Real and Rising

Health plans and other covered entities, their business associates and others involved in health plan design and operations generally should resist the temptation to underestimate their potential HIPAA exposure based on the limited enforcement of HIPAA by the Office of Civil Rights between 2003 and 2009 for a variety of reasons.

First, the changes taking effect on February 17, 2010 follow the implementation changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, when President Obama signed the HITECH Act into law and the new breach notification requirements added by the HITECH Act that took effect on September 23, 2009. The HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s remedies significantly increase the risk that health plans and other covered entities and their business associates will face civil lawsuits, civil or criminal penalties or other consequences for violating HIPAA.

The expanded risks stem in part from the HITECH Act’s amendments to HIPAA’s remedy provisions. Among other things, the HITECH Act amended HIPAA to:

Allow a State Attorney General to sue health plans or other covered entities, business associates or both that harm state citizens by committing HIPAA violations after February 16, 2009;
Expand the mandate by the Office of Civil Rights to investigate violations and audit compliance with HIPAA;
Require Office of Civil Rights to impose civil sanctions against health plans and other covered entities and their business associates involved in violations of HIPAA in accordance with tightened standards added to HIPAA by the HITECH Act;
Revise the criminal sanctions that the Department of Justice can seek against health plans and other covered entities, their business associates and others for violations of HIPAA;
Amend HIPAA to make clear that HIPAA’s criminal sanctions also can imposed on business associates, workforce members and other persons that improperly use, access and disclose protected health information in violation of HIPAA.

A HIPAA civil lawsuit filed on January 13, 2010 demonstrates the willingness of at least some states to exercise the new authority created by the HITECH Act on February 17, 2009 to sue covered entities and business associates that violate HIPAA for civil damages.

The HITECH Act empowers a state attorney general to sue covered entities or business associates engaging in HIPAA violations that harms citizens of the state for statutory damages equal to the sum of the number of violations multiplied by 100 up to a maximum of $25,000 per calendar year plus attorneys fees and costs

Even before the HITECH Act amendments, however, the Office of Civil Rights and Department of Justice already were stepping up HIPAA investigation and enforcement. The Department of Justice has obtained a variety of criminal convictions against violators of HIPAA. See, e.g., 2 New HIPAA Criminal Actions Highlight Risks From Wrongful Use/Access of Health Information. Meanwhile, the Office of Civil Rights in February, 2009 announced that CVS Pharmacies, Inc. would pay $2.25 million to resolve HIPAA charges. This announcement followed the Office of Civil Rights announcement in July, 2008 that Providence Health Care would pay $100,000 to resolve HIPAA violation charges. While not resulting in the significant payments involved in CVS or Providence, the Office of Civil Rights also taken HIPAA enforcement actions against a broad range of other covered entities to redress HIPAA violations or other compliance concerns. To review examples of these other actions, see here.

Along side these governmental actions, state courts also increasingly are willing to allow individual plaintiffs to rely on violations of HIPAA as the basis for bringing state privacy, retaliation or other actions. While prior to the recent HITECH Act amendments, federal courts had ruled that private plaintiffs could not sue under HIPAA for damages they incurred from a covered entity’s violation of HIPAA, state courts have allowed private plaintiff’s to use the obligations imposed by HIPAA as the basis of a covered entity’s duty for purposes of certain state law lawsuits. In Sorensen v. Barbuto, 143 P.3d 295 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), for example, a Utah appeals court ruled a private plaintiff could use HIPAA standards to establish that a physician owed a duty of confidentiality to his patients for purposes of maintaining a state law damages claim. Similarly, the Court in Acosta v. Byrum, 638 S.E. 2d 246 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) ruled that a plaintiff could use HIPAA to establish the “standard of care” in a negligence lawsuit. Meanwhile, private plaintiffs employed by covered entities also are increasingly pointing to HIPAA as the basis for their retaliation claims. See, e.g., Retaliation For Filing HIPAA Complaint Recognized As Basis For State Retaliatory Discharge Claim. Coupled with the HITECH Act changes, these and other enforcement actions signal growing potential hazards for covered entities and their business associates that fail to properly manage their HIPAA compliance obligations and risks.

Health Plans & Business Associates Should Take Timely Action To Comply & Manage Risks

As a consequence of these collective HITECH Act changes and growing HIPAA-related exposures, both health plans and business associates generally will find it necessary or advisable among other things to:

Conduct well-documented due diligence on each other’s practices and procedures to improve their ability to demonstrate both their commitment to compliance and their realistic efforts to ensure that these commitments are operationalized in performance;
Renegotiate their service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance obligations of each party relating to for auditing compliance, investigating potential breaches; providing required breach notifications; specify leadership and required cooperation in the event of a breach, charge, or other concern; indemnification and other liability allocations; and other related matters; and
Pursue appropriate liability and other protection as appropriate.

As part of these compliance and risk management efforts, most covered entities and their business associates will find it advisable to devote significant attention to the business associate relationship and its associated business associate agreements.

Proper management of the expanded compliance obligations and liability exposures created by the HITECH Act generally will necessitate that health plans and other covered entities and their business associates focus significant attention on the reworking of their operating and contractual relationships.

Further updating and tailoring of these and other provisions of services agreements has become even more important over the past year in light of the new breach notification mandates that took effect under the HITECH Act in September, 2009, changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, and the impending extension by the HITECH Act to business associates of direct liability for compliance with HIPAA scheduled to occur on February 17, 2010.

Given these changes and the associated obligations and risks, both health plans and other covered entities and their business associates generally should act quickly to manage their own compliance and to minimize exposures that may result from the other’s compliance deficiencies. As part of these efforts, both covered entities and their business associates generally should review and tighten business associate and other service agreement provisions to provide for more specific and comprehensive HIPAA-related contractual assurances, as well as improved cooperation, coordination, management and oversight.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your organization need advice or assistance in reviewing, updating, administering or defending its HIPAA or other privacy policies, practices, business associate or other agreements, notices or other related activities, consider contacting Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A widely published author and speaker on HIPAA and other related matter, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising health plans, their employer and other sponsors, health insurers, TPAs and other business associates and others about HIPAA and other health plan and privacy matters. Currently serving as both Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative and Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience assisting employers, insurers, plan administrators and fiduciaries and others to design, implement, draft and administer health and other employee benefit plans and to defend audits, litigation or other disputes by private parties, the IRS, Department of Labor, Office of Civil Rights, Medicare, state insurance regulators and other federal and state regulators. As part of this work, she regularly assists clients to review and update policies, practices, contracts, notices and procedures to comply with HIPAA and other requirements. A nationally recognized author and lecturer, Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Health Plans & Business Associates Face 2/17 Deadline To Update Policies, Contracts & Procedures For HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes | ARRA, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill | Tagged: Breach Notice, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, PHI, Privacy, Privacy Rule, Risk Management, Security Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Homeland Security Updates List of Nations Whose Nationals Are Eligible for H-2A or H-2B Visas

January 20, 2010

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in conjunction with the United States Secretary of State yesterday announced the countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H–2A and H–2B visa program for the upcoming year. USCIS may only approve H–2A and H–2B petitions for nationals of countries included among this list of countries. USCIS published the list the Federal Register on January 19, 2010.

The countries included on the list of countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H–2A and H–2B visa programs for one year period beginning January 18, 2010 through January 17, 2011 include: Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to this invitation or other employment, compensation, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, or corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is experienced assisting employers and others to design, administer and defend I-9 and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefits, corporate ethics and compliance and other risk management practices. She also advises, assists, trains, audits and defends employers and others regarding the federal and state Sentencing Guideline and other compliance, equal employment opportunity, privacy, leave, compensation, workplace safety, wage and hour, workforce reengineering, and other labor and employment and defends related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. 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 participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Homeland Security Updates List of Nations Whose Nationals Are Eligible for H-2A or H-2B Visas | Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Nonresident aliens, Risk Management | Tagged: Employment, H-2A Visa, H-2B Visa, I-9, Immigration | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks To CPAs About “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” January 12, 2010

December 28, 2009

Accountants and their clients face increasing regulatory and business pressures to protect the sensitive business and personal information collected and maintained in the course of their operation to minimize their exposure to personal identity theft and other cybercrime scams by employees, business partners and others. Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak about “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” to members of the Dallas CPA Society on January 12, 2010 beginning at 2:00 p.m.

Part of the Dallas CPA Society Member Appreciation CPE Series Meeting, Ms. Stamer’s presentation will be part of four hours of free CPE training to be provided at a program open to members only at the Hilton Lincoln Centre Hotel located at 5410 LBJ Freeway, Dallas TX 75240 from 1 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. Central Time. (Parking at the facility costs $5.00). To register or for additional information, see here.

If you need help responding to these developments or other legislative, regulatory or enforcement concerns, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP can help. Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP and its attorneys have significant experience assisting businesses and business leaders to manage and defend privacy, data security, tax employee benefit, employment, health care, environmental, safety, securities and other compliance and risk management concerns.

Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 22 years experience helping businesses to use the law, process and technology to manage people and processes, and to manage technology, privacy and data security, employment and other legal and operational risks affecting their businesses. Author of “Privacy & Securities Standards-A Brief Nutshell,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” and “E-Health Business and Transactional Law Other Liability-Tort and Regulatory;” published by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., and many other publications, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising a accounting firms, law firms, banks and financial services organizations, insurers, consultants, health plans, health care providers and others about HIPAA, FACTA, and other privacy, trade secret and other information security and data breach risk management and compliance concerns. Ms Stamer also speaks, publishes and provides public policy input extensively on data security, technology and other internal controls and risk management matters. Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, and Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Ms. Stamer also is Board Certified in Labor & Employment law. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, assistance investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance or risk management concern, or need legal representation on other matters please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Labor & Employment Practice Chair at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; or your other preferred Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

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 Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning 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 Stamer Speaks To CPAs About “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” January 12, 2010 | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Malpractice, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Risk Management | Tagged: Acountant's Liability, Corporate Compliance, CPA, CPE, Employee Benefits, Employer, GINA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rising Enforcement and Changing Rules Require Prompt Review & Update of Health Plan Privacy & Data Security Policies & Procedures

December 25, 2009

Health plans and their business associates should review and update their practices and policies concerning the use access and disclosure of protected health information in response to changing requirements and expanding enforcement exposures under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules.

A series of Office of Civil Rights (OCR) enforcement action against health plans highlights the need for group health plans and insurers to exercise care to comply with HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Rules. For example, OCR recently required a HMO to take a series of corrective actions based on findings from its investigation of a complaint that the HMO impermissibly disclosed a member’s protected health information by sending her entire medical record to a disability insurance company without her authorization. Based on its investigation, OCR found the HMO violated HIPAA by relying on a form to make the disclosure that failed to meet the Privacy Rule requirements to qualify as a valid authorization under the Privacy Rule. Based on these findings, OCR required the HMO among other things:

To create a new HIPAA-compliant authorization form that specifies what records and/or portions of the files will be disclosed, that the respective authorization will be kept in the patient’s record, together with the disclosed information and otherwise to meet the content requirements of the Privacy Rule for an authorization; and
To implement a new policy that directs staff to obtain patient signatures on these forms before responding to any disclosure requests, even if patients bring in their own “authorization” form.

Another action resulted after a national health maintenance organization sent explanation of benefits (EOB) by mail to a complainant’s unauthorized family member. OCR’s investigation determined that a flaw in the health plan’s computer system put the protected health information of approximately 2,000 families at risk of disclosure in violation of the Privacy Rule. To resolve this case, OCR required among other things that the insurer to correct the flaw in its computer system, review all transactions for a six month period and correct all corrupted patient information.

In yet another case, OCR found an employee of a major health insurer impermissibly disclosed the PHI of one of its members without following the insurer’s authorization and verification procedures. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required the health insurer to train its staff on the applicable policies and procedures, to take action to mitigate the harm to the individual and to counsel and give a written warning to an employee who made the disclosure.

While OCR declined to impose any civil penalties in any of these three instances, violations of the Privacy Rules have resulted in both criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice and the payment of large civil settlements to OCR. See, e.g., 2 New HIPAA Criminal Actions Highlight Risks From Wrongful Use/Access of Health Information HIPAA Risks Soar As CVS Agrees to Pay $2.25 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges & Stimulus Bill Amends HIPAA. Furthermore, recent amendments to the Privacy Rules increase the likelihood that health plans and other covered entities violating the Privacy Rules will incur civil penalties. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) amended the Privacy Rules effective October, 2009 to increase the civil penalties for Privacy Rule violations and to include new breach notification requirements for covered entities. Additional ARRA amendments to HIPAA scheduled to take effect February 17, 2010 will further tighten the conditions under which covered entities may use, access or disclose PHI under the Privacy Rules, will expand the circumstances under which health plans and other covered entities will be required to account for dealings with PHI under HIPAA, and will extend the duty to comply with and liability for violations of the Privacy Rules to business associates. In the meanwhile, employees increasingly are alleging Privacy Rule violations as part of their whistleblower or other wrongful discharge claims. See, e.g. Retaliation For Filing HIPAA Complaint Recognized As Basis For State Retaliatory Discharge Claim.

In light of these changing rules and expanding liabilities, health plans and their business associates need to review and update their Privacy and Security practices, business associate agreements and privacy notices for compliance in light of the expanding enforcement activities of OCR and these evolving Privacy and Security Rules. These and other developments make it imperative that health plans and other covered entities and their business associates immediately review and update their HIPAA and other data security and privacy practices to guard against growing liability exposures under HIPAA and other federal and state laws.

If your organization needs assistance reviewing, updating, administering or defending privacy and data security practices under HIPAA, state data breach or other laws, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP can help. The author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health plans, health insurers, and other covered entities and business associates to review, update, document, enforce and defend their HIPAA and other privacy and data security policies and practices. The author of numerous publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security rules, she also speaks and conducts training extensively on these concerns.

Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, insurers, administrators, and others to design and administer group health plans cost-effectively in accordance with HIPAA and other applicable federal regulations as well as well as advising and defending employers, health plans, insurers and others against privacy, tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the OCR, DOJ,IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators.. Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, a representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. 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 participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Rising Enforcement and Changing Rules Require Prompt Review & Update of Health Plan Privacy & Data Security Policies & Procedures | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management | Tagged: ARRA, Health Plans, HIPAA, OCR, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3 Articles On Employee Benefit Risk Management Published In ABA RPTE E-Report

December 23, 2009

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer the author of three articles in the December 2009 Issue of the American Bar Association Real Property Probate & Trust Section E-Report:

Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, and Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her work assisting businesses, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors, insurers, administrative services providers, governments, and other entities to develop administer and defend cost-effective employee benefit other human resources programs, policies and procedures to meet their budgetary, risk management and compliance and other objectives. Board certified in Labor & Employment law, Ms. Stamer applies her extensive experience regarding employment, employee benefit, and other related laws to assists clients in a wide range of business and litigation contexts. The co-founder of the Solutions Law Consortium, Ms. Stamer, also is the publisher of Solutions Law HR & Benefits Update. She speaks and writes extensively about employee benefits and other human resources, compensation and internal controls matters.

If your organization or employee benefit plan needs assistance with employee benefits, labor and employment or other internal controls and risk management matters, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or another Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney of your choice. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

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 to cstamer@cttlegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our CTT HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions in blog form via RSS feed here. You also may be interested in staying abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by reviewing and registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controls distributions. For important information concerning 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 support@cttlegal.com.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to the Proposed Regulations, the Q&As, or other employment, compensation, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation and employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. 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 participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

IRS Proposes To Update Regulations On Exclusion of Damages Received on Account of Personal Physical Injuries or Physical Sickness To Eliminate Tort Test
OSHA Final Rule Updates OSHA Personal Protective Equipment Standards
DOL Proposes Changes To H-2A Temporary & Seasonal Agricultural Nonimmigrant Worker Certification Procedures & Related Rules
Register Now For HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update: Learn What You Must Do This Month To Comply With New Health Data Breach Regulations
ADAAA Amendment Broader ADA “Disability” Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks
New Study Shares Data On Migrant Health Care Challenges Along The Border
Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23
Stamer, Others To Discuss Technology Use/Risks in Employee Benefits, Tax & HR Consulting & Administration
Businesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision
OFCCP To Apply Special Procedures, Heightened Scrutiny To Equal Employment Practices of Government Contractors, Subcontractors On ARRA Funded Projects
With September 8 Deadline For Government Contractors To Use E-Verify, USCIS Invites Comments On E-Verify Program Designated Agent Processr Enforcement

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on 3 Articles On Employee Benefit Risk Management Published In ABA RPTE E-Report | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans, Risk Management | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department To Expand Employee Benefits, Wage & Hour, OSHA & Other Reporting & Disclosure Requirements & To Implement Other New Employee Benefit Regulations

December 8, 2009

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) plans to implement a host of new employee benefit and employment regulations seeking to strengthen employee benefit, wage and hour, safety and other protections with greater transparency and disclosure, the Labor Department announced yesterday.

Employee Benefits, Wage & Hour, OSHA & Other Rules Seek To Protect Workers With Transparency

Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) plans to implement a host of new rules designed to strengthen retirement security by expanding the private employee benefit plan disclosure requirements and enhancing the availability of information to pension plan participants and beneficiaries and employers, according to the Department of Labor (DOL) 2009 Regulatory Agenda (the “Regulatory Agenda”) announced yesterday.

According to the Regulatory Agenda, EBSA plans to promote these goals through the implementation of a host of new rules including:

Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans, which would increase transparency between individual account pension plans and their participants and beneficiaries by ensuring that participants and beneficiaries are provided the information they need, including information about fees and expenses, to make informed investment decisions.
Amendment of Standards Applicable to General Statutory Exemption for Services, which would require service providers to disclose to plan fiduciaries services, fees, compensation and conflicts of interest information.
Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Plans, which would require defined benefit plan administrators to provide all participants, beneficiaries and other parties with detailed information regarding their plan’s funding status.
Periodic Pension Benefits Statements, which would require pension plans to provide participants and certain beneficiaries with periodic benefit statements.
Multiemployer Plan Information Made Available on Request, which would require pension plan administrators to provide copies of financial and actuarial reports to participants and beneficiaries, unions and contributing employers on request.

The 2009 Regulatory Agenda highlights the most noteworthy and significant regulatory projects that the Labor Department has established for the EBSA, the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Employment and Training Administration (ETA) for the upcoming year. In addition to the transparency rules planned for EBSA, the 2009 Regulatory Agenda also indicates that employers can expect new Labor Department regulations targeting transparency in other areas. These include:

The MSHA to propose a rule on Notification of Legal Identity, which would require mine operators to provide increased identification information, would allow the agency to better target the most egregious and persistent violators and deter future violations.
The Office of Labor-Management Standards’ to propose regulations on Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws, which would implement Executive Order 13496 and require all Government contracting agencies to include a contract clause requiring contractors to inform workers of their rights under Federal labor laws.
The Wage and Hour Division to update its regulations about Records to be Kept by Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act to enhance the transparency and disclosure to workers as to how their wages are computed and to allow for new workplace practices such as telework and flexiplace arrangements.
OSHA to modify its Hazard Communication Standard to require standardized labeling requirements and order of information for safety data sheets and to update its Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements rule, which would propose the collection of additional data to help employers and workers track injuries at individual workplaces, improve the Nation’s occupational injury and illness information data, and assist the agency in its enforcement of the safety and health workplace requirements.

Other Employee Benefit Regulations Planned

Beyond its planned EBSA transparency initiative, the 2009 Regulatory Agenda reflects that other EBSA regulatory priorities for the year ahead include:

Issue guidance implementing the group health plan Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) amendments to ERISA which generally prohibit group health plans from discriminating in health coverage based on genetic information and from collecting genetic information. This will be a joint rulemaking action with the Departments of Health and Human Services and the Treasury.
Provide guidance regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) amendments to ERISA. MHPAEA creates parity for mental health and substance use disorder benefits under group health plans by mandating that any financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits to be no more restrictive than predominant requirements or limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by a plan.
Issue guidance clarifying the circumstances under which health care arrangements established or maintained by state or local governments for the benefit of non-governmental employees do not constitute an employee welfare benefit plan for purposes of ERISA.
Propose amendments to its regulations to clarify the circumstances under which a person will be considered a fiduciary when providing investment advice to employee benefit plans and their participants and beneficiaries of such plans.
Explore steps it can take by regulation, or otherwise, to encourage the offering of lifetime annuities or similar lifetime benefits distribution options for participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution plans.

Employers and employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and service providers should take into account these planned regulatory changes for budgeting and program design purposes and keep alert for announcements of proposed or final regulations or other guidance in these and other areas.

If your organization needs assistance with monitoring, assessing, managing or defending these or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney of your choice. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, risk management and internal controls matters. Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment laws, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. She has counseled and represented employers on these and other workforce matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Labor Department To Expand Employee Benefits, Wage & Hour, OSHA & Other Reporting & Disclosure Requirements & To Implement Other New Employee Benefit Regulations | Absenteeism, ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, GINA, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Military Leave, OFCCP, OSHA, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Safety, Uncategorized, Wellness | Tagged: COBRA, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, ERISA, GINA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medical Coverage, Military Leave, Minimum Wage, Occupational Injury, Overtime, Privacy, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rising Defined Benefit Plan Underfunding & Changing Rules Create New Obligations & Risks For Business

December 4, 2009

Underfunded defined benefit pension plans raise significant liability risks for businesses that sponsor or who belong to control or affiliated service groups that include a business that sponsors an underfunded defined benefit plan as well as for businesses contemplating lending to, investing in, or purchasing stock or assets of these businesses.

Radical drops in plan asset values attendant to the economic downturn and Congress’ amendment of federal funding rules to accelerate the funding of defined benefit plans have triggered a defined benefit plan underfunding epidemic. Indeed, challenges of meeting their defined benefit plan funding obligations increasingly are resulting in an unprecedented number of distress terminations and forcing many businesses to restructure or even file bankruptcy. Currently, recently released Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) guidance makes it necessary or desirable that sponsoring businesses or fiduciaries of defined benefit plans take action before year end or shortly thereafter to meet critical compliance deadlines.

Complex New Rules Increase Underfunding Risks & Obligations

The new rules seek to implement Congressional amendments to the pension funding requirements intended to short up the security of the U.S. pension system and the pension guarantee insurance program run by the PBGC under the Pension Protection Act of 2006, as amended (PPA). Under the PPA, single-employer plans that are between 60 and 80 percent funded may not pay lump sums or other accelerated distribution forms with values in excess of: (1) 50 percent of the amount that would be paid absent the restriction or, if smaller (2) the present value of PBGC’s maximum guarantee computed under PBGC guidance. The PPA also requires certain funding certifications, notices and other requirements.

Enacted while the economy was strong, the burden of meeting the added pension funding demands resulting from the decreased earnings and acceleration of benefits associated with the economic downturn combined with the new rules’ expedited funding requirements are overwhelming many plan sponsors. With the economic downturn, however, the prospects for Congressional or other regulatory relief are not good. The PBGC is straining to keep up. The 2009 Annual Management Report submitted to Congress in November shows the PBCG ended fiscal year 2009 with an overall deficit of $22 billion, compared with the $11.2 billion deficit for fiscal year 2008. The deficit in the PBGC’s insurance program for single-employer pension plans widened to $21.1 billion for the year, $10.4 billion more than the prior-year’s $10.7 billion shortfall. The separate insurance program for multiemployer pension plans posted a deficit of $869 million, exceeding last year’s $473 million shortfall by $396 million. Accordingly, the PBGC and the IRS have continued to roll out a series of complex new regulations to implement the new rules.

New Defined Benefit Plan Regulations Complex Maze of Burdensome Requirements

Single employer pension plans generally must begin complying with final funding regulations published by the IRS in October during 2010; however, many plan sponsors are likely to find it desirable to adopt certain amendments or take other steps during 2009. Under these rules, underfunded plan benefit accruals and certain amendments will be curtailed and certain notifications, certifications and other actions required. Timely compliance with these mandates can help to mitigate some of the otherwise draconian liability associated with pension plan underfunding while helping to mitigate the continuing growth of these liabilities in an already underfunded pension plan.

Under section 101(f) of ERISA and guidance issued by the Department of Labor, starting with plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2008, single-employer plans with liabilities that exceed plan assets by $50 million or more must provide PBGC with a copy of the Annual Funding Notice by the Annual Funding Notice due date. Single-employer plans with liabilities that exceed plan assets by less than $50 million must provide PBGC with a copy of the Annual Funding Notice within 30 days of receiving a written request from PBGC. See Department of Labor Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2009-01 (Feb. 10, 2009), here.

In addition, defined benefit pension plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries also must contend with a host of complex new PBGC insurance, premium, certification and reporting and other requirements and guidance. For instance:

On March 16, 2009, PBGC published a Final Rule that amends its regulation on Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting (29 CFR part 4010). The final rule implements Pension Protection Act of 2006 changes to ERISA section 4010 and makes other modifications and clarifications to the reporting requirements. PBGC expects to update the e-4010 filing application and related materials (e.g., filing instructions) within a few days. Until the application is updated, filers should not attempt to enter data for post-PPA filing; such data will be lost when the application is updated. However, first-time filers may log on to the application to set up an account and familiarize themselves with the application, through here. The first filings under the new rules were due April 15, 2009.

On November 23, 2009, PBGC published:

A Request For Public Comment on purchases of irrevocable commitments to provide plan benefits before initiating a standard termination under ERISA section 4041. Comments are due by January 22, 2010;
A Proposed Rule that would conform PBGC’s reportable events regulation under section 4043 of ERISA and several other PBGC regulations to statutory and regulatory changes resulting from the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The proposed rule also would eliminate most of the automatic waivers and filing extensions, add two new reportable events, and make some other changes and clarifications. Comments on the proposed rule are due by January 22, 2010;
Asked the Office of Management and Budget a request for approval of changes to the reporting requirements under ERISA Part 4043;
Issued Technical Update 09-4, which extends guidance provided in Technical Update 09-1 and Technical Update 09-3 for 2010 plan years. PBGC expects to supersede the guidance in Technical Update 09-4 with a final rule amending the reportable events regulation sometime during 2010.

On December 1, 2009, PBGC:

Published a Final Rule amending its valuation regulation by substituting a new table for selecting a retirement rate category. The new table applies to any plan being terminated either in a distress termination or involuntarily by the PBGC with a valuation date falling in 2010.
Published a Final Rule removing the maximum guarantee table from its benefit payment regulation and telling the public where to find maximum guaranteeable benefits on its Web site. The maximum guaranteeable monthly benefit for 2010 is $4,500.00 (unchanged from 2009).
Published a Notice stating that the per-participant flat-rate premium for single-employer plans for plan year 2010 is $35.00 (up from $34.00 for Plan Year 2009) and $9.00 (unchanged from Plan Year 2009) for multiemployer plans. By law, the premium rates are adjusted for inflation each year based on changes in the national average wage index. The notice states that no further flat premium rate notices will be published in the Federal Register and tells the public where to find flat premium rates on its Web site.

On December 4, 2009, PBGC submitted draft information requirements to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with PBGC’s pending Proposed Rule on Reportable Events are now available on PBGC’s Web site. PBGC has posted the information that would be required (under the proposed rule) to be reported on Form 10, Form 10-A, and Form 200 and the corresponding draft instructions.

Previously, during 2009, the PBGC also:

Announced an increase in the per-participant flat-rate premium for plan year 2010 to $35.00 for single-employer plans (up from $34.00 for plan year 2009) and to $9.00 for multiemployer plans (unchanged from plan year 2009).
Published certain relief for certain small plans from part 4043 reporting requirements if a required quarterly contribution for the 2009 plan year is not timely made to a plan, and the failure to make the contribution is not motivated by financial inability under Technical Update 09-3.. The Technical Update waives reporting in such cases if the plan has fewer than 25 participants and provides a simplified reporting requirement if the plan has at least 25 but fewer than 100 participants.
Issued Technical Update 09-2, which allows 4010 filers to determine benefit liabilities for 4010 reporting purposes using the form of payment assumption described in 29 CFR § 4044.51 (generally an annuity form of payment). This is an alternative to the form-of-payment-assumption under § 4010.8(d)(2)(i) of PBGC’s Final Regulation On 4010 Reporting, which requires filers to use the form-of-payment assumption for determining the minimum required contribution.
Updated the e-4010 filing application and related materials have been updated to reflect changes in the March 16, 2009 Final Rule. The application is now available to accept post-Pension Protection Act of 2006 filings.

Free December 10 Study Group Teleconference Examines New Requirements

Persons concerned about these issues may wish to consider participating in a free one hour “Study Group” conference call that the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group (Group) plans to host December 10, 2009, at 1 PM Eastern, Noon Central, 11 AM Mountain and 10 AM Pacific. The Study Group will explore a number of current/breaking issues of interest to practitioners and their clients dealing with single-employer defined benefit plans. Key topics will include:

Recent Regulatory Guidance on Funding and Benefit Restrictions
Mandatory and Optional Amendments to be Adopted by 2009 Plan Year End
PBGC Proposal to Eliminate Most Reporting Waivers and Extensions (and PBGC Interim Guidance)
Pre-Standard Termination Irrevocable Commitment Purchases (PBGC Comment Request)
Update on PBGC Pursuit of “Downsizing” Liability (ERISA Section 4062(e)).

The conference call will be moderated by:

Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP, Dallas, TX;
Group’s Plan Termination Committee Chair, Harold Ashner, Keightley & Ashner LLP, Washington, DC, and
Group’s Plan Termination Committee Vice-Chair, Henry Talavera, Hunton & Williams LLP, Dallas, TX.

Interested persons can participate in the Study Group by dialing 1-800-504-8071 and entering the passcode 9885683. To assist the Group in anticipating the number of participants, the Group encourages those planning to participate to e-mail Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at here to RSVP.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Attorneys Can Help

If your business needs assistance with distressed or bankruptcy company, defined benefit plan funding or other employee benefit, human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or other related concerns or in responding to restructuring and bankruptcy, employment or employee benefits related charges, audits, investigations or suits, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Corporate Restructuring & Bankruptcy Chair G. Michael Curran at mcurran@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-1402, Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402, or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.

Mr. Curran provides legal counsel on all aspects of out-of-court reorganizations and workouts, as well as bankruptcy proceedings. He has represented debtors, debtors’ and creditors’ committees, and third party purchasers in a variety of complex factual and legal scenarios, and has also acted as special counsel. His experience includes substantial experience addressing defined benefit and other employee benefit and human resources issues arising in connection with restructuring, bankruptcy and other significant business events and transactions.

Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, fiduciaries, bankruptcy trustees, investors, purchasers and others about defined benefit plan and other employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation and other related concerns involved with distressed businesses or benefit plans, bankruptcy and restructuring transactions and other corporate or plan related events. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a Joint Committee on Employee Benefit Council Member, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented these and other business clients on employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Her experience includes significant experience representing and advising employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and service providers and their affiliates; investors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees, and others about employee benefit, labor and employment and related services and compensation concerns affecting transactions involving bankrupt or distressed corporations. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Among her many publications is her November, 2009 publication, “Calculation of Minimum Contributions Required For Single Employer Pension Plans: The Final Rules for The Measurement of Assets and Liabilities For Pension Funding Purposes under Final Treasury Regulation Section 1.430(d)-1.” Persons interested in a copy of this publication may contact Ms. Stamer. See here for additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, here to review other recent updates, here for other articles and publications, and review selected training and presentations here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. 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 participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Rising Defined Benefit Plan Underfunding & Changing Rules Create New Obligations & Risks For Business | Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Income Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreements, ERISA, ERISA 302, Human Resources, Internal Controls, IRC 412, Labor, PBGC, pension plan, pension plan funding, Retirement Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies For Violating Army Reserve Member’s Rights Highlights Expanding Employer Military Leave Risks & Liabilities

December 1, 2009

The Justice Department yesterday (November 30, 2009) filed suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies for allegedly willfully violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by discriminating against Eugene C. Burress, a U.S. Army Reserve member, on the basis of his military service and by failing to offer Burress an appropriate reemployment position when he returned from military service. The 22nd USERRA lawsuit filed during 2009 by the Civil Rights Division on behalf of service members, the lawsuit highlights the growing liability risks that employers face for failing to properly comply with the evolving military leave mandates of USERRA and other applicable laws.

The MasTec Lawsuit

In a complaint filed in federal court in West Virginia, the Justice Department alleges that, in January 2008, Burress, then a field technician supervisor at MasTec’s Martinsburg, W.Va., office, was called to active duty in the U.S. Army, and that Burress notified his supervisor at MasTec of his upcoming military service. Prior to giving this notice of call to active duty, Burress’ supervisor had informed Burress that the site manager position at the office would be vacant soon and offered the position to Burress when it became available. Burress accepted this offer. While Burress was engaged in military service, however, MasTec promoted another MasTec employee to site manager. Burress filed a complaint with the Labor Department’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, which investigated and attempted to resolve Burress’s USERRA complaint before referring it to the Justice Department. The Justice Department seeks back pay and other benefits Burress would have received had MasTec reemployed him as required by USERRA, as well as liquidated damages for MasTec’s willful violation of USERRA.

Evolving USERRA & Other Military Service Related Leave Requirements Make Compliance Review Advisable

USERRA prohibits an employer discriminating against an employee if the employee’s service or obligation for service in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such service or obligation for service. USERRA also requires that service members on leave be offered the opportunity to continue group health plan coverage for certain periods while on leave. Subject to certain limitations, USERRA also requires that employers offer reemployment promptly to service members who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the military in the same positions or in positions comparable to the positions they would have held had their employment not been interrupted by military service and be reinstated to all benefits and other rights of employment at that time. Although Final Regulations construing these requirements were issued in 2005, many employers have yet to update their practices and policies to comply with the current USERRA mandates. Furthermore, compliance with these mandates often creates various practical operational challenges even for U.S. businesses who fully understand these rules.

In addition to USERRA, U.S. businesses also may need to update their policies and procedures to comply with new military leave related rights recently extended to service members and their families under amendments to the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1990 (FMLA) that took effect on January 28, 2008 under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2008 NDA). In addition to the otherwise applicable provisions of the FMLA, the 2008 NDA amended the FMLA to require under certain circumstances that covered employers grant FMLA Leave:

For up to 26 weeks FMLA Leave to a FMLA-covered employees who is the spouse, parent, child, or next of kin of a service member who incurred a serious injury or illness on active duty in the Armed Forces (Caregiver Leave); and
For up to 12 weeks of FMLA Leave to a FMLA-covered employee who has a spouse, parent, or child who is on or has been called to (or notified of an impending call or order to) active duty in the Armed Forces in response to an event that is a “qualifying exigency” (Military Exigency Leave).

Final regulations implementing the 2008 NDA FMLA mandates and other FMLA requirements took effect on January 16, 2009.

With these regulations barely dry, however, Congress this Fall further expanded these FMLA protections as part of amendments enacted by the National Defense Authorizations Act 2010 (2010 NDAA) that took effect October 29, 2009. Among other things, the 2010 NDAA:

Expanded FMLA Military Exigency Leave to apply to active duty service members deployed to a foreign country. Previously, Military Exigency Leave only applied to reservists.
Expanded Military Caregiver Leave to include care for a service member who aggravates a prior injury or illness during the course of his military service. Previously, aggravation of an illness or injury did not qualify for Military Caregiver Leave; and
For periods after the Secretary of Labor issues regulations defining the term “qualifying injury or illness” for a veteran, extended Military Caregiver Leave to include veterans who undergo medical treatment, recuperation or therapy for a qualifying injury or illness, as long as the service member was a member of the reserves or armed forces at any time during the five years before the veteran undergoes treatment. Military Caregiver Leave previously was not inapplicable to veterans.

Following these amendments, Congress continues to contemplate various other proposed expansions to these and other military service employment and other rights.

The recent changes to federal employment protections for military service members and their families and the increased emphasis on enforcement of these requirements make it advisable that employers review and revise their military leave, family leave and other employment policies,, employee benefit plans, and other policies and practices for compliance with current rule, while remaining alert for statutory or regulatory changes to these requirements. Employers also should confirm that their employment posters and leave notification documentation and communications are up to date.

While reviewing current military service related leave policies and practices, employers also should confirm that they complying with recently revised Internal Revenue Service rules about reporting and withholding on differential pay paid to employees during military leave. This Spring, the Internal Revenue Service updated its guidance about these requirements. Under Revenue Ruling 2009-11, employers that pay differential pay to employees absent on active duty military leave job must treat as taxable wages for income tax purposes, withhold income tax on and report as W-2 wages military duty differential pay. However, Revenue Ruling 2009-11 states employers need not withhold or pay Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) or Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”) taxes on those payments.

If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending these or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney of your choice. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, risk management and internal controls matters. Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment laws, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. She has counseled and represented employers on these and other workforce matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Justice Department Suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies For Violating Army Reserve Member’s Rights Highlights Expanding Employer Military Leave Risks & Liabilities | Absenteeism, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, FMLA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Internal Controls, Leave, Military Leave, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, employment discrimination, employment litigation, FMLA, Military Leave, military Service, Risk Management, USERRA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Preventive HR Strategies to Minimize Post Holiday Celebration Legal Hangovers

November 30, 2009

As the 2009 Holiday Season moves into full swing, your company may want to take some common sense precautions to minimize the risk of waking up with a post-Holiday Season business liability hangover. The music, food, game playing, toasting with alcohol and other aspects of the celebratory atmosphere at holiday parties and in the workplace during the Holiday Season heighten the risk that certain employees or other business associates will engage in, or be subject to, risky or other inappropriate behavior that can create liability exposures or other business concerns for your business.

Discrimination & Sexual Harassment

Whether company-sponsored or not, holiday parties and other celebrations where employees celebrate with other employees or clients tend to fuel bad behavior by inviting fraternization, lowering inhibitions and obscuring the line between appropriate and inappropriate social and business behavior.

The relaxation of the environment heightens the risk that certain employees or clients will make unwelcome sexual advances, make sexually suggestive or other inappropriate statements, or engage in other actions that expose the business to sexual harassment or other employment discrimination liability. To minimize these exposures, businesses should take steps to communicate and reinforce company policies and expectations about sexual harassment, discrimination, fraternization and other conduct viewed as inappropriate by the company. The company should caution employees that the company continues to expect employees and business partners to adhere to company rules against sexual harassment and other inappropriate discrimination at company sponsored and other gatherings involving other employees or business associates. To enhance the effectiveness of these reminders, a company should consider providing specific guidance about specific holiday-associated activities that create heightened risks. For instance, a business that anticipates its employees will participate in white elephant or other gift exchanges involving other employees or business associates may wish to specifically include a reminder to exercise care to avoid selecting a gift that may be sexually suggestive or otherwise offensive. Businesses also may want to remind employees that the company does not expect or require that employees submit to unwelcome sexual or other inappropriate harassment when participating in parties or other social engagements with customers or other business partners.

Businesses also should use care to manage other discrimination exposures in the planning of holiday festivities, gift exchanges, and other activities. Exercise care to ensure that business connected holiday parties, communications, gifts and other December festivities reflect appropriate sensitivity to religious diversity. Businesses also should be vigilant in watching for signs of inappropriate patterns of discrimination in the selection of employees invited to participate in company-connected social events as well as off-duty holiday gatherings sponsored by managers and supervisors.

Alcohol Consumption

The prevalence of alcohol consumption during the Holiday Season also can create a range of business concerns. Most businesses recognize that accidents caused by alcohol intoxication at work or work-related functions create substantial liability exposures both to workers and any third parties injured by a drunken employee. Businesses also may face “dram shop” claims from family members or other guests attending company sponsored functions injured or injure others after being allowed to over-imbibe. To minimize these risks at company-sponsored events, many companies elect not to serve or limit the alcohol served to guests at company sponsored events. To support the effectiveness of these efforts, many businesses also choose to prohibit or restrict the consumption of guest provided alcohol at company events.

Businesses concerned with these liability exposures should take steps to manage the potential risks that commonly arise when employees or clients consume alcohol at company sponsored events or while attending other business associated festivities. Businesses that elect to serve alcohol at company functions or anticipate that employees will attend other business functions where alcohol will be served need to consider the potential liability risks that may result if the alcohol impaired judgment of an employee or other guest causes him to injure himself or someone else. Any company that expects that an employee might consume alcohol at a company sponsored or other business associated event should communicate clearly its expectation that employees not over-imbibe and abstain from driving under the influence. Many businesses also find it beneficial to redistribute information about employee assistance programs (EAPs) along with this information. You can find other tips for planning workplace parties to minimize alcohol related risks on the U.S. Department of Labor’s website here.

When addressing business related alcohol consumption, many businesses will want to consider not only alcohol consumption at business related events as well as potential costs that may arise from off-duty excess alcohol consumption. Whether resulting from on or off duty consumption, businesses are likely to incur significant health and disability related benefit costs if an employee is injured in an alcohol-related accident. Furthermore, even when no injury results, productivity losses attributable to excess alcohol consumption, whether on or off duty, can prove expensive to business. Accordingly, virtually all businesses can benefit from encouraging employees to be responsible when consuming alcohol in both business and non-business functions.

Businesses also may want to review their existing health and other benefit programs, liability insurance coverage and employment policies to determine to ensure that they adequately protect and promote the company’s risk management objectives. Many health and disability plans incorporate special provisions affecting injuries arising from inappropriate alcohol use as well as mental health and alcohol and drug treatment programs. Similarly, many businesses increasingly qualify for special discounts on automobile and general liability policies based upon representations that the business has in effect certain alcohol and drug use policies. Businesses can experience unfortunate surprises if they don’t anticipate the implications of these provisions on their health benefit programs or liability insurance coverage. Reviewing these policies now to become familiar with any of these requirements and conditions also can be invaluable in helping a business to respond effectively if an employee or guest is injured in an alcohol-related accident during the Holiday Season.

Concerned employers may want to listen in on the “Plan Safe Office Parties this Holiday Season” seminar that the National Safety Council plans to host on December 9, 2009 from 10:30 a.m. -11:30 a.m. Central Time. For more information or to register call (800) 621-7619 or see here.

Gift Giving & Gratuities

The exchange of gifts during the Holiday Season also can raise various concerns. As a starting point, businesses generally need to confirm that any applicable tax implications arising from the giving or receiving of gifts are appropriately characterized and reported in accordance with applicable tax and other laws. Government contractors, health industry organizations, government officials and other entities also frequently may be required to comply with specific statutory, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements affecting the giving or receiving of gifts or other preferences. In addition to these externally imposed legal mandates, many businesses also voluntarily have established conflict of interest, gift giving or other policies to minimize the risk that employee loyalty or judgment will be comprised by gifts offered or received from business partners or other outsiders. Businesses concerned about these and other issues may want to review the adequacy of current business policies affecting gifting and adopt and communicate any necessary refinements to these policies. To promote compliance, businesses also should consider communicating reminders about these policies to employees and business associates during the Holiday Season. Even a simple e-mail reminder to employees that the company expects them to be familiar with and comply with these policies can help promote compliance and provide helpful evidence in the event that an employee engages in an unauthorized violation of these rules.

Performance, Attendance & Time Off

Businesses also commonly face a range of attendance and productivity concerns during December. The winter cold and flu season and other post-celebration illnesses, vacations, and winter weather inevitably combine to fuel a rise in absenteeism in December. Managing staffing needs around the legitimate requests for excused time off by employees presents real challenges for many businesses. Further complications can arise when dealing with employees suspected of mischaracterizing the reason for their absence or otherwise gaming the company’s time off policies. Meanwhile, performance and productivity concerns also become more prevalent as workers allow holiday shopping, personal holiday preparations, and other personal distractions to distract their performance. Businesses concerned with these challenges ideally will have in place well-designed policies concerning attendance, time off and productivity that comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other laws. Businesses should exercise care when addressing productivity and attendance concerns to investigate and document adequately their investigation before imposing discipline. Businesses also should ensure that their policies are appropriately and even-handedly administered. They also should exercise care to follow company policies, to maintain time records for non-exempt workers, to avoid inappropriately docking exempt worker pay, and to provide all required notifications and other legally mandated rights to employees taking medical, military or other legally protected leaves. In the event it becomes necessary to terminate an employee during December, careful documentation can help the business to defend this decision. Furthermore, businesses should be careful to ensure that all required COBRA notifications, certificates of creditable coverage, pension and profit-sharing notice and distribution forms, and other required employment and employee benefit processes are timely fulfilled.

Timely Investigation & Notification

Businesses faced with allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment or other misconduct also should act promptly to investigate any concerns and if necessary, take appropriate corrective action. Delay in investigation or redress of discrimination or other improprieties can increase the liability exposure of a business presented with a valid complaint and complicate the ability to defend charges that may arise against the business. Additionally, delay also increases the likelihood that a complaining party will seek the assistance of governmental officials, plaintiff’s lawyers or others outside the corporation in the redress of his concern.

If a report of an accident, act of discrimination or sexual harassment or other liability related event arises, remember to consider as part of your response whether you need to report the event to any insurers or agencies. Injuries occurring at company related functions often qualify as occupational injuries subject to worker’s compensation and occupational safety laws. Likewise, automobile, employment practices liability, and general liability policies often require covered parties to notify the carrier promptly upon receipt of notice of an event or claim that may give rise to coverage, even though the carrier at that time may not be obligated to tender a defense or coverage at that time.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Preventive HR Strategies to Minimize Post Holiday Celebration Legal Hangovers | Absenteeism, Disease Management, EEOC, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, OSHA, Privacy, Risk Management, Safety, Sexual Harassment, Wage & Hour, Wellness | Tagged: COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Minimum Wage, Occupational Injury, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer H1N1 Virus Risk Management Requires Employer Care To Manage Virus Risks Without Violating Employment Discrimination or Other Laws

November 30, 2009

As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continues cautioning Americans to expect a resurgence of the H1N1 virus, employers should continue to take prudent steps to defend their organization and their workers against a widespread H1N1 outbreak and the attendant lost time, health and disability costs, OSHA and other liability exposures and other personal and financial consequences likely to result from an outbreak.

Employers wishing to deter the spread of the disease in their workplace should educate workers about these recommendations and consider taking steps to encourage workers to comply with these recommendations. When planning or taking steps to protect their workplaces from the H1N1 virus pandemic or other outbreaks of communicable diseases, however, employers must use care to avoid violating the Americans With Disabilities Act or other employment laws.

Preventing, Recognizing & Mitigating Risks of H1N1

Although the number of reported cases of H1N1 virus cases has declined in many states in recent weeks, CDC officials are warning American’s that the crisis is not over yet. CDC officials last week warned Americans to expect H1N1 infection to rise as the holiday approaches and the winter progresses. With flu activity already higher than what is seen during the peak of many regular flu seasons and the H1NA virus accounting for almost all of the flu viruses identified so for this season, Accordingly, the CDC continues to encourage Americans to be alert for symptoms of H1N1 or other flu and to take other precautions including to get vaccinated.

Employers should continue to encourage workers and their families to take precautions to avoid catching the virus, to be on the watch for H1N1 virus or other flu infection and to respond appropriately if they, members of their families or others in the workplace exhibit these symptoms. To help promote health habits within their workforce, many businesses may want to download and circulate to employees and families the free resources published by the CDC here. Businesses and other concerned parties also can track governmental reports about the swine flu and other pandemic concerns at here.

For those not already suffering from the virus and particularly for those at higher risk, the CDC continues to recommend vaccination. People recommended by the CDC to receive the vaccine as soon possible include: health care workers; pregnant women; people ages 25 through 64 with chronic medical conditions, such as asthma, heart disease, or diabetes; anyone from 6 months through 24 years of age; and people living with or caring for infants under 6 months old. As the vaccine becomes available, many employers are encouraging workers and their families to get vaccinated by offering vaccination clinics at or near their worksites, arranging for health plan coverage for vaccinations with reduced or no co-payments or deductibles, and/or sharing information about government sponsored or other vaccination clinics.

While the CDC says getting employees and their families to get a flu shot remains the best defense against a flu outbreak, it also says getting employees and family members to consistently practice good health habits like covering a cough and washing hands also is another important key to prevent the spread of germs and prevent the spread of respiratory illnesses like the flu. Employers should encourage employees and their families to take the following steps:

Avoid close contact with people who are sick. When you are sick, keep your distance from others to protect them from getting sick too;
Stay home when you are sick to help prevent others from catching your illness;
Cover your mouth and nose;
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing. It may prevent those around you from getting sick;
Clean your hands to protect yourself from germs;
Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth;
Germs are often spread when a person touches something that is contaminated with germs and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth; and
Practice other good health habits. Get plenty of sleep, be physically active, manage your stress, drink plenty of fluids, and eat nutritious food.

Employers also should encourage workers and their families to be alert to possible signs of H1N1 or other flu symptoms and to respond appropriately to possible infection. According to the CDC, all types of flu including H1NA typically include many common symptoms, including:

Fever
Coughing and/or sore throat
Runny or stuffy nose
Headaches and/or body aches
Chills
Fatigue

Patients suffering from H1N1 flu usually report these same symptoms, but the symptoms often are more severe. In addition to the above symptoms, a number of H1N1 flu cases reported vomiting and diarrhea.

CDC recommends individuals diagnosed with H1N1 flu should:

Stay home and avoid contact with others for at least 24 hours after a fever (100°F or 37.8°C) is gone without the use of fever reducing medicine except to get medical care or for other things that must be done that no one else can do;
Avoid close contact with others, especially those who might easily get the flu, such as people age 65 years and older, people of any age with chronic medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease), pregnant women, young children, and infants;
Clean hands with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub often, especially after using tissues or coughing/sneezing into your hands;
Cover coughs and sneezes;
Wear a facemask when sharing common spaces with other household members to help prevent spreading the virus to others. This is especially important if other household members are at high risk for complications from influenza;
Drink clear fluids such as water, broth, sports drinks, or electrolyte beverages made for infants to prevent becoming dehydrated;
Get plenty of rest;
Follow doctor’s orders; and
Watch for signs for a need for immediate medical attention. Suffers should get medical attention right away if the sufferer has difficulty breathing or chest pain, purple or blue discoloration of the lips, is vomiting and unable to keep liquids down, or shows signs of dehydration, such as feeling dizzy when standing or being unable to urinate.

In seeking to contain the spread of the virus within their workplace, employers also should be sensitive to workplace policies or practices that may pressure employees with a contagious disease to report to work despite an illness and consider whether the employer should adjust these policies temporarily or permanently in light of the ongoing pandemic. For instance, financial pressures and the design and enforcement of policies regarding working from home and/or qualifying for paid or unpaid time off significantly impact the decisions employees make about whether to come to work when first experiencing symptoms of illness. Employers of workers who travel extensively – may wish to delay or restrict travel for some period.

Employers Must Employment Discrimination & Other Legal Compliance Risks

Many employers may want to evaluate and appropriately revise existing policies with an eye to better defending their workforce against a major outbreak. Whether or not the disease afflicts any of its workers, businesses can anticipate the swine flu outbreak will impact their operations – either as a result of occurrences affecting their own or other businesses or from workflow disruptions resulting from safeguards that the business or other businesses implement to minimize swine flu risks for its workforce or its customers. Many businesses also will want to prepare backup staffing and production strategies to prepare for disruptions likely to result if a significant outbreak occurs.

Employers planning for or dealing with an H1N1 or other epidemic in their workplace should exercise care to avoid violating the nondiscrimination and medical records confidentiality provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1990 (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state wage and hour laws, and other employment and privacy laws.

Improperly designed or administered medical inquiries, testing, vaccination mandates and other policies or practices intended to prevent the spread of disease may expose an employer to disability discrimination liability under the ADA or GINA. For instance, the ADA generally prohibits an employer from making disability-related inquiries and requiring medical examinations of employees, except under limited circumstances permitted by the ADA. Likewise, improperly designed or communicated employer inquiries into family medical status which could be construed as inquiring about family medical history also may raise exposures under genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy mandates of GINA that took effect November 21, 2009.

During employment, the ADA prohibits employee disability-related inquiries or medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Generally, a disability-related inquiry or medical examination of an employee is job-related and consistent with business necessity when an employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that:

An employee’s ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or
An employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.

This reasonable belief “must be based on objective evidence obtained, or reasonably available to the employer, prior to making a disability-related inquiry or requiring a medical examination.”

Additionally, the ADA prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries and conducting medical examinations of applicants before a conditional offer of employment is made. It permits employers to make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations if all entering employees in the same job category are subject to the same inquiries and examinations. All information about applicants or employees obtained through disability-related inquiries or medical examinations must be kept confidential. Information regarding the medical condition or history of an employee must be collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and be treated as a confidential medical record. The EEOC Pandemic Preparedness In The Workplace and The Americans With Disabilities Act Guidance makes clear that employer inquiries and other H1N GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” is likely to present a liability trap door for many unsuspecting employers H1N1 and other epidemic planning and response activities should be carefully crafted to avoid violating these proscriptions.

GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” also could present a liability trap door for some employers designing pandemic or other workplace wellness, disease management or other programs. GINA defines “genetic information” broadly as including not only information about genetic tests about an individual or his family member as well as information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual, GINA also specifies that any reference to genetic information concerning an individual or family member includes genetic information of a fetus carried by a pregnant woman and an embryo legally held by an individual or family member utilizing an assisted reproductive technology. For more information about the new GINA genetic information employment discrimination rules, see here.

As part of their pandemic planning, employers also generally should review their existing wage and hour and leave of absence practices. Employers should ensure that their existing or planned practices for providing paid or unpaid leave are designed to comply with the FLSA and other wage and hour and federal and state leave of absence laws. Employers also should review and update family and medical leave act and other sick leave policies, group health plan medical coverage continuation rules and notices and other associated policies and plans for compliance with existing regulatory requirements, which have been subject to a range of statutory and regulatory amendments in recent years. If considering allowing or requiring employees to work from home, employers also need to implement appropriate safeguards to monitor and manage employee performance, to protect the employer’s ability to comply with applicable wage and hour, worker’s compensation, OSHA and other safety, privacy and other legal and operational requirements.

Businesses, health care providers, schools, government agencies and others concerned about preparing to cope with pandemic or other infectious disease challenges also may want to review the publication “Planning for the Pandemic” authored by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer available at here. FLU.gov is a one-stop resource with the latest updates on the H1N1 flu. An additional resource is CDC INFO, 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636), which offers services in English and Spanish, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Schools, health care organizations, restaurants and other businesses whose operations involve significant interaction with the public also may need to take special precautions. These and other businesses may want to consult the special resources posted here.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending these or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment laws, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, health and other employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning 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 here.

Comments Off on Employer H1N1 Virus Risk Management Requires Employer Care To Manage Virus Risks Without Violating Employment Discrimination or Other Laws | ADA, COBRA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, family leave, FMLA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Leave, medical leave, OSHA, Pandemic, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management, Safety, Swine Flu, Wage & Hour, Wellness | Tagged: ADA, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor, Medical Coverage, Minimum Wage, Pandemic, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SHRM Urges American’s To Oppose HR 3962, The Affordable Health Care For America Act

November 6, 2009

In a rare weekend meeting, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act and, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her way, vote to pass it as early as this weekend.

In anticipation of this action, the Society For Human Resources (SHRM) is voicing strong opposition to H.R. 3962 and urging U.S. citizens and businesses to express their strong opposition to it as well to members of Congress immediately.

According to communications circulated this week, SHRM “strongly supports comprehensive health care reform that strengthens the employer-based system, promotes wellness programs and health promotion initiatives, strengthens the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), increases purchaser and consumer access to cost and quality information and increases access to affordable health coverage. SHRM says the House bill fails to achieve these goals. Accordingly, SHRM is urging American’s to contact their Representative today to urge a NO VOTE on H.R. 3962.

SHRM’s concerns about the proposal include that H.R. 3962:

Does not include provisions to facilitate greater availability of wellness programs among employers and employees.
Does not include meaningful cost, quality, or transparency provisions to ensure that both employers and employees have better access to health-related information.
Requires employers to provide and pay for “qualified” health care coverage or face an 8 percent payroll tax. Employers must pay 72.5 percent of the premium for individuals and 65 percent of the premium for families. In addition, even if an employer provides and pays for health insurance coverage for their workforce, that employer could still be subject to an 8 percent payroll tax if employees decline employer coverage because it is unaffordable – defined as more than 12 percent of the employee’s income.
Would erode the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by applying state law remedies to employer purchased coverage in a health insurance exchange; prohibiting post-retirement reductions of retiree health benefits by group health plans, unless reductions are also made to active employees’ health benefits; and requiring employer-sponsored plans to meet detailed federal requirements that will increase costs.
Includes a public insurance plan option that raises serious concerns about cost-shifting to private plans. SHRM objects because inadequate reimbursement practices under Medicare and Medicaid has resulted in significant cost-shifting to private plans, increasing costs for both employers and employees.

In light of these concerns, SHRM is asking all members and other concerned Americans to write mMembers of Congress TODAY and urge them to oppose the Affordable Health Care for America Act. It invites members to use SHRM’s HRVoice to share thes econcernings by:

Log ging onto HR Voice
Under the heading “Take Immediate Action on these Hot Issues,” click on: “VOTE NO on the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962)” and
Personalizing and sending individualized letters by including specific information about the organization you work for, your experiences in the workplace, and why this legislation would negatively impact your organization.

If you have questions about or need assistance monitoring, evaluating, commenting on or responding to this or any other health care reform proposal or other federal or state health care, workforce or other legislative, regulatory or other developments or concerns, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state health care, employee benefit, workforce and other legislation and regulation. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented clients about these and other health care labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Her public policy experience includes ongoing involvement in these concerns within the U.S. for 30 years, as well as serving as a policy advisor on Social Security Reform to the Government of Bolivia and providing input or other representation to various other clients on workforce, health care and other policies in various other regions of the world.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Comments Off on SHRM Urges American’s To Oppose HR 3962, The Affordable Health Care For America Act | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: Employer, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Public OPtion, Public Policy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23

August 24, 2009

Employer and other health plans, health care providers, health clearinghouses and their business associates must start complying with new federal data breach notification rules on September 23, 2009.

The new “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) published here in today’s Federal Register requires health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) covered under the personal health information privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information.The Breach Regulation is part of a series of guidance that HHS is issuing to implement new and stricter personal health information privacy and data security requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

You are invited to catch up on what these new rules mean for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Wednesday, September 9 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time.

HITECH Act Data Breach and Unsecured PHI Rules

Published in the August 24, 2009 Federal Register, the new Breach Regulation implements the HITECH Act requirement that Covered Entities and their business associates notify affected individuals, the Secretary of HHS, and in some cases, the media, when a breach of “unsecured protected health information” happens and the form, manner, and timing of that notification. Covered Entities must begin complying with the new Breach Regulation on September 23, 2009.

Part of a series of new HHS rules implementing recent changes to HIPAA enacted under the HITECH Act to strengthen existing federally mandates requiring Covered Entities to safeguard protected health information, the Breach Regulation will obligate Covered Entities and business associates to provide certain notifications following a breach of “protected health information” that not secured at the time of the breach through the use of a technology or methodology meeting minimum standards issued by HHS pursuant to other provisions of the HITECH Act.

Under the HITECH Act, the breach notification obligations contained in the Breach Notification only apply to a breach of “unsecured protected health information.” The Breach Regulation exempts breaches of protected health information that qualify as “secured” under separately issued HHS and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) standards for encryption and destruction of protected health information from its breach notification requirements.

For purposes of the HITECH Act, electronic protected health information is considered “unsecured” unless the Covered Entity has satisfied certain minimum standards for the protection of that data established pursuant to the HITECH Act. Earlier this year, HHS and the FTC issued interim rules defining the minimum encryption and destruction technologies and methodologies that Covered Entities must use to render protected health information unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals for purposes of determining when protected health information is “unsecured” for purposes of the HITECH Act. Concurrent with its publication of the Breach Regulation, HHS also released guidance updating and clarifying this previously issued guidance.

Read the Breach Regulation here . To review the HITECH Act Breach Notification Guidance and Request for Information, see here .

Register For September 9, 2009 “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update”

Interested persons are invited to register here now to learn what these new rules mean for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time. For a registration fee of $45.00, registrants will have the option to participate via teleconference or in person at the offices of Curran Tomko Tarski LLP, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 2050, Dallas Texas 75201. For questions or other information about this program, e-mail here.

Conducted by Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, the briefing will cover:

Who must comply
What your organization must do
How to qualify protected health information as exempt from the breach regulations as “secure” protected health information
What is considered a breach of unsecured protected health information
What steps must a covered entity take if a breach of unsecured protected information happens
What liabilities do covered entities face for non-compliance
What new contractual requirements, policies and procedures Covered Entities and Business Associates will need
How the Breach Regulation, the Privacy Regulation, impending FTC red flag rules and state data breach and privacy rules interrelate
Other recent developments
Practical tips for assessing, planning, moving to and defending compliance
Participant questions
More

About The Presenter

The program will be presented by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, publications and presentations on privacy and security of health and other sensitive information in health and managed care, employment, employee benefits, financial services, education and other contexts.

Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and currently the Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Section and a Council Representative of the ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer has more than 20 years experience advising clients about health and other privacy and security matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer is the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010, as well as the author of “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of other highly regarded publications. She has continuously advises employers, health care providers, health insurers and administrators, health plan sponsors, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, schools, financial services providers, governments and others about privacy and data security, health care, insurance, human resources, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters. Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance monitoring, evaluating or responding to these or other compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270-2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner of your choice.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on our electronic Curran Tomko Tarski LLP publications available for review 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 at here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

Comments Off on Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23 | ARRA, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Preemption, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Tax | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HealthP Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management, Subsidy Bill, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer, Others To Discuss Technology Use/Risks in Employee Benefits, Tax & HR Consulting & Administration

July 29, 2009

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak about “Technology Issues for Tax Attorneys and their Clients” on September 26, 2009 at the American Bar Association 2009 Fall Joint Tax Meeting in Chicago.

The September 26 program will feature a panel discussion of:

Research tools, anti-virus, encryption and other technology practice aids, tools and tricks tax practitioners;
IRS, DOL and other rules impacting opportunities for employers and employee benefit plan administrators to use electronic communications to reduce employment and employee benefit plan communication expenses;
Electronic communications with government agencies and the need to be prepared to provide electronic records for tax audits;
Expanding personal information privacy and data security considerations; and
More.

Moderated by Frank Palmieri of Palmieri & Eisenberg, Alexandria, VA, the confirmed panelists include:

Catherine Sanders Reach of the American Bar Association, Chicago, IL;
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer of Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP, Dallas, TX;
Joy M. Mercer of Joy M. Mercer, PC, Florham Park, NJ; and
Danny A. Martin, Jr. of Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX.

The session is scheduled to take place from 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 26, 2009. To register for the meeting or other details, see here.

Chair Elect of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, and Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her work assisting businesses, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors, governments, and other entities to develop administer and defend cost-effective employee benefit other human resources programs, policies and procedures to meet their budgetary, risk management and compliance and other objectives. Board certified in Labor & Employment law, Ms. Stamer applies her extensive experience regarding employment, employee benefit, tax, privacy and data security and other related laws to assists clients in a wide range of business and litigation contexts. The co-founder of the Solutions Law Consortium, Ms. Stamer also makes extensive use of cloud computing and other technology in her own practice and provides input to human resources and other clients others about the use of these and other technology tools to manage employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other operations. In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has works, writes and consults extensively with a diverse range of clients about the development, use technology and other processes to streamline health and other benefit, payroll and other human resources, employee benefits, tax, compliance and other business processes and the management and protection of sensitive personal and other information and data.

If your organization or employee benefit plan needs assistance managing or evaluating options or responsibilities associated with the use of technology and data in connection with its health care, employee benefits, tax or other operation or other human resources, employee benefits or and compliance concerns, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

More Information & Resources

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 Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning 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 support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Comments Off on Stamer, Others To Discuss Technology Use/Risks in Employee Benefits, Tax & HR Consulting & Administration | Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Plans, Income Tax, Internal Controls, Privacy, Professional Liability, Risk Management, Tax, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Data Security, Employee Benefit Communications, Employee Benefits, Health Care, Health Plans, Privacy, Retirement Plans, Tax, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Businesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision

July 22, 2009

Businesses that fire or discipline employees increasingly face retaliation claims by disgruntled workers claiming the protection of nondiscrimination and other federal and state whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 06-1595, highlights the need for employers to exercise constant vigilance to potential retaliation claims and the need to act to avoid retaliating, or appearing to retaliate against employees when conducting internal investigations, terminations, promotions or other workforce management activities. While the decision specifically addressed retaliation under Title VII, the use of similar language in other federal laws regulating business conducting – including those covered by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines – makes it likely that the decision has much broader implications.

Technically, the Crawford decision specifically applied to retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) in the context of a sexual harassment complaint investigation. However, business should anticipate that creative plaintiffs and their legal counsel soon will ask courts to apply the Crawford holding beyond sexual harassment to reach to claims brought by employees claiming injury in retaliation for statements made in relation to investigation of other federal statutes prohibiting retaliation. A host of federal and state employment and other laws prohibit businesses from retaliating against employees for reporting possible prohibited conduct or seeking to exercise certain rights legally protected rights. Because many of these statutes use the same or similar language to the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VI, share the same or similar purpose, or both, businesses should anticipate that certain courts will be inclined to view the Crawford rationale, if not its holding, as applicable to retaliation claims under certain of these other federal statutory prohibitions. Accordingly, pending further guidance, most businesses interested in minimizing exposures to retaliation claims will want to design and administer investigations to avoid the impression of illegal retaliation against witnesses in sexual harassment investigations as other investigations where similar anti-retaliation provisions may apply. Accordingly, most U.S. businesses will treat Crawford as having potential implications both in relation to sexual harassment and other investigations under Title VII as well as investigations conducted other federal laws containing similar anti-retaliation provisions.

The Crawford Decision

In its February 2, 2009 unanimous Crawford decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII protect employees against retaliation for giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior when responding to questions asked during the employer’s investigation of a sexual harassment discrimination, even if the employee took no further overt action to complain about, seek to remedy or stop the misconduct.

Vicky Crawford sued the employer under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, which prohibits an employer from terminating a worker because she “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” under Title VII. The Crawford case arose from statements Ms. Crawford made in response questions addressed to her as part of her employer’s investigation of sexual harassment rumors. Asked if she’d witnessed any inappropriate behavior by a supervisor, Ms. Crawford answered told the employer about a series of harassing acts by the supervisor toward herself. Besides reporting her experience in reply to employer questions during the investigation, however, Ms. Crawford did not file a sexual harassment complaint or otherwise report her alleged sexual harassment experience to the employer. Following the interview, the employer did not discipline the supervisor. However, the employer subsequently fired Ms. Crawford and two other employees who also reported being harassed by the supervisor. As part of its defense, the employer argued that Ms. Crawford’s report during the course of the investigation did not qualify as “opposition” prohibited under Title VII.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether simply disclosing an act of harassment in answer to a question constitutes “oppos[ing]” an unlawful practice, or whether – as the court of appeals had held – opposition within the meaning of the provisions requires something more assertive.

Applying the ordinary meaning of “oppose,” the Supreme Court unanimously found that “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . . employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that protected opposition under Title VII includes giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior, even if the employee takes no further action on her own to seek to stop or remedy the conduct.

Explaining its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated that a contrary rule that would require a worker to engage in “active, consistent” behavior in order to engage in protected opposition would be inconsistent with common usage. For example, the Court explained, one can “oppose capital punishment” without doing anything active to end it. The Supreme Court rejected as “freakish” an interpretation of “opposition” that would protect an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.”

While concurring in the unanimous opinion, Justices Alito and Thomas cautioned against reading that opinion too broadly. Their opinion clarifies that in their view, covered opposition must be “active and purposive” to qualify as protected. Consequently, they warned that the Court’s opinion should not be read to suggest that Title VII protects merely opposing a practice in principle (like opposing capital punishment) without taking any action at all to express that opposition.

Other Broader Potential Implications & Lessons From Crawford

Although the report by Ms. Crawford involved her notification to the employer that she too may have been sexually harassed, the implications of the Crawford decision reach more broadly.

Crawford specifically construed the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), which makes it unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any . . . employe[e]” who (1) “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter”, or (2) “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter”. This provision of Title VII and other equal employment opportunity laws, as well as the Family & Medical Leave Act and various other employment laws commonly contain similar prohibitions against an employer or business discriminating against protected persons for opposing unlawful practices or making charges, testifying, assisting or participating in investigation of practices prohibited under the applicable employment law. Consequently, there exists a significant probability that courts will apply the Crawford holding to retaliation claims brought by employees for testimony or other participation in investigation in other equal employment opportunity charges under Title VII and other employment laws.

It also is possible that employees ask the courts to extend the holding of Crawford to retaliation claims brought by employees claiming to have been retaliated against for participating in the investigation of or expressing opposition to illegal practices under a wide range of other statutes. Beyond the employment context, many other federal laws incorporate similar prohibits against employer discrimination against employees for opposing practices made unlawful under their provisions or providing testimony or participating in investigations of potential violations of their provisions. For example, in connection with its criminal prohibition of major fraud against the United States, paragraph (h) of 18 U.S.C § 1031 creates a right for individuals discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others “in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution)” to recover for job and seniority reinstatement, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest, litigation costs and reasonable attorneys fees and other special damages.

Given these similarities, pending further guidance, U.S. businesses generally will want to exercise sensitivity when dealing with employees who express opposition, testify or otherwise participate in investigations or prosecutions of potential violations under Title VII and other federal laws that contain the same or similar anti-retaliation provisions.

Read from this perspective, the Crawford decision highlights the advisability for businesses not to overlook the potential significance of the statements and conduct by employees involved in any internal investigation, performance, or other activity that might later form the basis of a retaliation complaint.

Businesses generally should listen carefully when conducting investigations, employee counseling and discipline meetings, and exit interviews with an eye out for the need to investigate potential legal violations, defend against retaliation charges, or both.

Although businesses should continue to require employees to report known or suspected discrimination or other prohibited conduct in accordance with a specified formal procedure, the Crawford decision reminds businesses not to overestimate the protection afforded by the establishment of formal reporting procedures.

Crawford also highlights the need for businesses to be careful to investigate and properly respond to new charges of discrimination or other potential legal or policy violations that may be uncovered in the course of an investigation, disciplinary meeting or exist interview.

Additionally, businesses also should seek to evaluate the potential implications of their dealings with employees who previously have made charges, participated in investigations, or claimed other protected rights such as taking a protected leave or the like.

Likewise, as in the defense of other employment claims, Crawford also reflects the value and importance of businesses appropriately documenting performance concerns relating to a specific employee and legitimate business challenges motivating employment actions as they arise, in the event that it subsequently becomes necessary to present evidence of a valid performance or business justification to defend against allegations by an employee claiming to have been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII or other similar federal anti-retaliation laws.

Finally, businesses should keep in mind the potential value of strong documentation. When seeking to defend against claims of discrimination or retaliation, the strength of the employer’s documentation often can play a significant role in the cost and ease of defense of the claim or charge. Businesses should work to prepare and retain documentation not only of allegations, investigations and determinations regarding both employee performance and discipline, as well as the handling of alleged violations of equal employment opportunity or other laws. Documentation should be prepared and retained on a systematic basis with an eye to strengthening the organization’s ability to prevent and defend against charges that the organization violated the core obligations under the applicable law as well as to defend employment decisions involving employees who may be in a position to assert retaliation claims.

The importance of good investigation and documentation practices takes on particular importance in the current tough economic environment. While retaliation claims have been rising for many years, the recent economic downturn is fueling an increase in the number of employees seeking to claim protection in the tightening economy based on retaliation or other employment law protections. Workforce dissention and changes in personnel also can complicate further the ability to defend these claims just as the Department of Labor and other federal regulators are turning up the enforcement heat. As a result, appropriate investigation and documentation procedures are particularly important in the current environment.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your business needs assistance auditing, updating or defending its human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or responding to employment related or other charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising ad defending employers against federal and state employment discrimination and other labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years.

More Information & Resources

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 Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning 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 support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Comments Off on Businesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, family leave, Human Resources, I-9, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, medical leave, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, Tax | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employment, Equal Employment Opportunity, ERISA, GINA, Health Insurance, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Retaliation, Risk Management, Sexual Harassment, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

September 8, 2009 New Deadline For Government Contractors, Subcontractors Deadline To Use E-Verify

June 9, 2009

September 8 now is the deadline for federal government contractors and subcontractors to begin using U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) E-Verify system to verify the eligibility of employees to work in the United States.

The Obama Administration recently delayed implementation of the final rule requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of employees to work in the U.S. The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (collectively known as the Federal Acquisitions Regulatory Councils) published an amendment in the Federal Register on June 5, 2009, postponing the applicability of the final rule until Sept. 8, 2009.

As originally published November 14, 2008, the final rule requiring that federal government contractors and subcontractors agree to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees went into effect January 19, 2009. However, the compliance deadline was delayed in January and again in April, 2009 by the Obama Administration. Prior to the delay granted this month, the deadline to begin using U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) E-Verify system was delayed to June 30, 2009.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers and others to respond to proposed legislation and regulations and addressing other leave and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls concerns. If your organization needs assistance with assessing or responding to H.R. 2450 or assistance with leave and absence management or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit concerns or regulations, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

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 Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys at 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 here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions here. Also stay abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controls distributions. For important information concerning 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 support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Comments Off on September 8, 2009 New Deadline For Government Contractors, Subcontractors Deadline To Use E-Verify | Corporate Compliance, E-Verify, Employee Benefits, Employment Agreement, Government Contractors, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, E-Verify, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, Government Contractors, Human Resources, I-9, Internal Controls, Labor | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update