The $17 million False Claims Act settlement with technology giant IBM by announced April 10, 2026, using affirmative action or other disfavored diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) practices creates added risks for federal government contractors and grant recipients beyond those U.S. businesses as a whole already face under the Trump Administration “merit based” interpretation and enforcement of federal Civil Rights laws as prohibiting DEI or other discriminatory decision making.
In the face of the IBM and other agency investigations and enforcements under the new merit based civil rights policy, all US businesses, generally, and government contractor specifically should seek the advice of qualified legal counsel on their potential exposure and options for mitigation of their exposure under the Trump merit based Civil Rights law interpretation and enforcement policy.
Affirmative Action & Other DEI Practices Under Attack
Government and private DEI practices have faced increasing challenges under a series of Supreme Court rulings that interpret the 14th Amendment as prohibiting affirmative action and other government required or applied race based hiring and other preferences except where adopted and tailored to redress a proven specific past discrimination harm. See e.g., Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023); AdarandConstructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 579–80 (2009). While the Court rulings since as early as 2009 indicated racial or other DEI preferences were allowed only to redress a past history of discrimination, federal regulators and many courts applied these holdings in a manner that presumed or required little evidence of specific discrimination to uphold DEI practices. Consequently, federal regulations and enforcement encouraged if not required broad adoption of these practices for decades.
The Supreme Court cast the dye for change with its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause and, as applied to recipients of federal funds, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d). Rejecting the universities’ diversity rationales as insufficiently measurable and not narrowly tailored, the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions ruled that racial classifications are presumptively invalid and must meet strict scrutiny with clear endpoints and individualized consideration to overcome that presumption of invalidity. Its holding and reasoning as applied to the facts leave little room for legal defense of DEI practices in education, government contracting, employment and other practices historically using DEI strategies absent a specific remedial justification tied to proven discrimination. See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009).
President Trump reacted to the Students for Fair Admissions and other Supreme Court rulings banning DEI policies in a series of Executive Orders upon beginning his second Presidency. See, Exec. Order No. 14148, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. ___ (Jan. 20, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14149, Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and Ending Illegal Discrimination, 90 Fed. Reg. ___ (Jan. 20, 2025); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Memorandum M-25-13, Initial Guidance Regarding President Trump’s Executive Order on Ending DEI Programs (Jan. 21, 2025); U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., Guidance on Implementation of Executive Orders Eliminating DEI Programs in Federal Workforce (Jan. 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Memorandum on Civil Rights Enforcement and Prohibition of Race-Based Preferences (Jan. 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Directive on Removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Training and Programs (Feb. 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Dear Colleague Letter, Application of Federal Civil Rights Laws to Race-Conscious Policies Post-SFFA (Feb. 2025).
Upon taking office, President Trump in his January 21, 2025 Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (“EO 14173”) directed federal agencies to interpret and enforce the Civil Rights Act as requiring merit-based decisions without application of preferences for diversity, equity and inclusion,” (“DEI”), “affirmative action” or other favoritism to particular groups.
In Executive Order (“EO”) 14173, President Trump announced his interpretation of the equal protection and opportunity provision of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Civil Rights Act “), Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 1996 (“Section 1557”) and other federal civil rights laws as guaranteeing “merit-based” decision-making and prohibiting DEI, affirmative action and other non-merit-based race, sex, religious, national origin preferences. Consistent with this merit-based construction, President Trump ordered all federal agencies “to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements” and “to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”
In response to these directives, federal agencies abandoned decades of regulations and enforcement practices that encouraged if not required DEI practices to enforce a merit based decision making interpretation of federal civil rights laws that prohibits affirmative action and other DEI practices.
In response to President Trump’s Executive Orders, for instance, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has abandoned regulations that for decades required federal contractors to demonstrate their affirmative action requirements effectiveness with a merit-only decision policy. See, Exec. Order No. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 21, 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Directive to OFCCP to Cease Enforcement of E.O. 11246 Affirmative Action Requirements (Jan. 24, 2025); Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Director Catherine Eschbach, Letter to Federal Contractors Regarding Compliance with Executive Order 14173 and Wind-Down of Affirmative Action Programs (June 27, 2025); Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Invitation to Voluntarily Report Compliance with Executive Order 14173 (2025).
Additionally, for employers generally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) revised its guidance to reflect that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2) prohibits race-based employment decisions except in narrow circumstances, reinforcing a shift toward race-neutral strategies. See, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work (updated 2023–2024) (explaining that Title VII prohibits employment decisions motivated by race, even when framed as DEI initiatives). Meanwhile, the EEOC and the DOJ also sought to educate employees suffering job detriment from their employers’ DEI practices about their potential claims by jointly publishing a one-page technical assistance document, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work.”These actions are heightening Civil Rights discrimination risks for all employers for current or past DEI practices.
The DOJ’s weaponization of the FCA adds another significant DEI-derived risk for healthcare, education and government contractors. As reflected by a series of high profile agency actions initiated against educational and health care organizations using DEI practices announced in conjunction with or following President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders, federal health care and educational organizations participating in federal programs and federal government contractors face much greater risks from use of DEI practices beyond the general exposure of employers under the revised EEOC interpretation and enforcement policies. While initially these DEI enforcement policies targeted education and health care organizations participating in programs funded or managed by the Department of Education , the Department of Health and Human Services, or both, the IBM settlement makes clear these enforcement policies and risks now apply to federal government contractors and grant recipients as a whole.
Federal Government Contractor & Grant Recipient DEI False Claims Act Exposure
The first settlement announced by DOJ under the Civil Rights Enforcement Initiative announced in May, 2025, the IBM settlement with DOJ confirms DOJ is pursuing government contractors for using DEI practices under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).
On May 19, 2025, DOJ announced it would prosecute government contractors and other federal funds recipients under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative for knowingly violating federal Civil Rights laws by using affirmative action, diversity, equity and inclusion, or other non-merit based (“DEI”) employment or other business preferences.
DOJ further clarified in subsequent guidance that DEI programs involving preferential treatment may violate statutes such as Title VI and Title VII, and that false certifications of compliance with those statutes may satisfy core FCA elements, including falsity and materiality. See, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Guidance to Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (July 2025).
DOJ takes the position that certain DEI programs expose federal contractors and grant recipients to liability under the FCA where those entities certify compliance with federal civil rights laws while maintaining practices the government views as involving unlawful race- or sex-based preferences.
In the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative announcement, DOJ stated that entities receiving federal funds that “knowingly violate[] federal civil rights laws” may be liable under the FCA because such violations can render certifications of compliance false and material to the government’s payment decisions. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Establishes Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (May 19, 2025).
Government contractors targeted by DOJ for False Claims Act prosecution under its Civil Rights Enforcement Initiative face serious consequences as Civil Rights Act compliance is a condition of participation in federal programs. Since compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to eligibility to bill or receive federal funds under federal programs, DOJ contends that billing the federal government or receiving funds under programs subject to these terms of participation for periods that the contractor are Grant recipient had DEI or other non-merit based practices constitutes making a false claim in violation of the False Claims Act.
Since announcing its FCA initiative, DOJ has encouraged whistleblower (qui tam) actions and signaled it was conducting active investigation and enforcement against federal funding recipients whose DEI policies allegedly conflict with federal nondiscrimination requirements of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. See also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Division Memoranda on Civil Rights Enforcement and FCA Application (2025).
IBM Settlement Confirms DOJ FCA DEI Enforcement
The IBM settlement secured under DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative confirms DOJ is pursuing government contractors for DEI practices.
On April 10, 2026 (publicly reported mid-April), DOJ announced that IBM agreed to pay approximately $17 million to resolve allegations that it violated the FCA by certifying compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements in its government contracts while allegedly maintaining DEI practices that the government contended were discriminatory on the basis of race or sex. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, IBM Pays $17 Million to Resolve Allegations of Discrimination Through Illegal DEI Practices (Apr. 10, 2026).
The DOJ IBM prosecution and resulting settlement reflect DOJ treats DEI programs as prohibited discrimination that can create FCA exposure where tied to contractual compliance obligations.
In its IBM prosecution, DOJ asserted that federal contractors must certify compliance with Title VII and related Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses as a condition of payment, and that knowingly maintaining noncompliant practices can render those certifications false and actionable under the FCA.
While IBM did not admit liability in the settlement, the DOJ sent a strong message to other government contractors to act to mediate their own exposure by repotting IBM received credit for cooperation, including early disclosures and remediation measures such as modifying or terminating the challenged programs.
As demonstrated by the announced IBM settlement, sanctions for False Claims Act violations are harsh. Along with potential criminal consequences for intentional or knowing violations, civil violations of the False Claims Act can result in treble damages and significant penalties, program exclusion or both.
Act Proactively To Mitigate Risks
The IBM settlement and other federal agency investigations and prosecutions sends a strong warning to Federal government contractors and federal grant recipients specifically and U.S. businesses generally to take proactive steps to mitigate their very real risk that their past and current DEI or other non-merit based employment and other policies.
With FCA enforcement now added to the employment discrimination enforcement risk government contractors face for challenged DEI practices, government contractors also must recognize their government contractor status puts them at a high risk of scrutiny due to the reporting and audit protocols used with government contracts and grants. When weighing the likelihood that their past or current practices will trigger scrutiny, government contractors are reminded that current and past certification and reporting facilitate the ability of DOJ and OFCCP to identify targets for enforcement under this new interpretation and enforcement of Civil Rights laws while sanctions secured through enforcement return significant revenue to federally constrained budgets.
Consequently, businesses generally and government contractors specifically should seek the assistance of qualified legal counsel to assess and mitigate their risk from past or current DEI initiatives in light of heightened litigation risk and federal agencies’s interpretation and enforcement of new Civil Rights merit based enforcement position. Organizations are encouraged to keep in mind that the sensitive nature of this investigation and analysis makes it critical that organizations conduct this analysis and their options for mitigation of liability within the scope of attorney. Client privileged to protect sensitive conversations and analysis from discovery.
If you have questions about or need assistance with these and other risk management or compliance concerns, contact the author.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Certification, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 35 years experience, advising plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others about fiduciary responsibility and other employee benefit plan design, administration, risk management and compliance. i
Ms. Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on health and other employee benefits, insurance, healthcare, workforce, HIPAA and other data and technology and other compliance in connection with her work with health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.
Ms. Stamer has more than 35 plus years of experience advising and representing, employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and administrators, their administrative services, technology and other business associates and other vendors, managed care and insurance, health care and other clients about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.
Ms. Stamer is nationally sought out for her decades of leading-edge experience in the design, sponsorship, administration, and defense of health, severance, savings retirement and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology, and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability, and advance other operational goals. This experience includes decades of work on ERISA, Internal Revenue Code and other related labor and employment, insurance, corporate and securities, data privacy and security, licensing and other laws. She also sought out for her extensive speaking and publications on these and related concerns.
Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations including current or previous service as Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member for the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section and Chair of its Welfare Plan, Fiduciary Responsibility and Plan Terminations Committees; Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee; Chair and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, Vice Chair of its Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees; and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management and Special Technologies Committees; ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) Council Representative and Scribe for its annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services; International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair; Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair; Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is valued and celebrated for her decades of policy advocacy and charitable, pro bono, community and other service and leadership to promote understanding and strengthening health care, workforce, saving, disability, aging and retirement and other key policies and challenges through her PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.
Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also often speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry, health and other benefits, workforce and other experience and involvements, see the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer P.C. website or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press™
Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could change the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
A $95,000 settlement of a Justice Department religious discrimination lawsuit alerts businesses to use care when handling religious accommodation requests in employment or other aspects of their operations in light of the Trump Administration’s announced enforcement priorities.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. The Justice Department warns enforcing the CRA’s religious protections is a Trump Administration priority in its May 2, 2025 announcement of a consent decree settlement of its CRA Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against the Advanced Science and Technology Education Charter Schools (“ASTEC”) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
The lawsuit alleges ASTEC discriminated against Marcus Rethwill, a former teacher at the school, on the basis of religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by terminating him after denying his request for a religious exemption from ASTEC’s vaccine mandate for employees because he could not provide a clergy letter supporting his request.
Under the consent decree, ASTEC will pay Rethwill $95,000 in monetary damages, revise its anti-religious discrimination policy, and provide mandatory training on the policy to personnel.
It is the policy of the United States, and the purpose of this order, to protect the religious freedoms of Americans and end the anti-Christian weaponization of government. …
My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians. The law protects the freedom of Americans and groups of Americans to practice their faith in peace, and my Administration will enforce the law and protect these freedoms. My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified.
It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.
The Justice Department warns other employers against violating their employees’ religious rights in its announcement of the consent decree. The announcement quotes Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division as warning:
When employees’ religious principles conflict with work rules, they should not be forced to choose between practicing their religion and keeping their jobs if a reasonable accommodation can be made. … Employer policies that rigidly restrict how employees can demonstrate the sincerity of their religious beliefs for religious accommodations are inconsistent with the breadth of Title VII’s protection against religious discrimination.
It also quotes U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester for the Western District of Oklahoma as stating
No employee should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to keep their job. …
Employers must take care not to craft or apply policies that require employees to forfeit their religious beliefs or impose unreasonable conditions that question the sincerity of those beliefs.
Other recent Justice Department investigation and enforcement actions clearly signal the Administration’s policy of enforcing religious rights extends beyond employment.
On April 29, 2025, for instance, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the private lawsuit, Grace New England v. Town of Weare, alleging that the town violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by threating fines against a small home-based church and its pastor.
The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and State Department reportedly have ordered employees to report employees displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of its effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government.
Widely-reported investigations and announced cancelations of federal grants or contracts, efforts to revoke tax-exempt status and other actions against Columbia University, Harvard University and others signal Jewish and other religions also may fall under these protections and that private sector organizations also are targeted for investigation and enforcement. It remains to be seen how the Administration will handle other religious discrimination claims. However organizations also must manage exposures to private federal and state claims.
In response to these investigation and enforcement priorities, all covered organizations should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel about evaluating and managing their own exposures to open past, current and potential future religious discrimination claims.
These efforts generally should include a comprehensive review and update of current policies and training, as well as an evaluation of exposure from open religious accommodation or other religious bias exposures within the scope of attorney-client privilege.
For More Information Or Help
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these discrimination or other workforce, employee benefits, health care, risk management or compliance, or other challenges or developments, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, via e-mail or telephone at (214) 452-8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating in and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on religious and other discrimination in connection with her work with employers, health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology, education, government contractors, and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.
Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her decades of leading edge experience on the design, sponsorship, administration and defense of employment and other services, employee benefit,, data and technology and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability and promote other operational goals.
Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section Welfare Plan Committee, Co-Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and on its Annual Meeting Program Planning Committee, Chair Emeritus and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee. She also has served as Scribe for the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services and JCEB Council Representative, International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member, Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, as TIPS Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits Committee and Workers Compensation Committee Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is recognized for her contributions to strengthening health care policy and charitable and community service resolving health care challenges performed under PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.
Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also frequently speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see http://www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press™
Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
The $1.19 million Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) penalty imposed on a Florida pain clinic this week sends a clear warning to health plans, health care providers, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) to take adequate, documented steps to ensure the defensibility of their own safeguards and other compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule including those from their own current and former workers and service providers.
HIPAA Security Rule
The HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules require health plans, health car clearinghouses, and most health care providers, and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) to meet requirements to protect the privacy and security of protected health information (“PHI”). The HIPAA Security Rule included in these rules requires Covered Entities to conduct and maintain documented risk assessments to prove their efforts to comply with detailed national administrative, physical and technical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of electronic PHI (“ePHI”).
Violation of HIPAA can trigger either civil monetary penalties or criminal penalties under HIPAA. As amended by the the HITECH Act, HIPAA provides for the following civil monetary penalties for HIPAA violations:
A minimum of $100 for each violation where the covered entity or business associate did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the covered entity or business associate violated such provision, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000
A minimum of $1,000 for each violation due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $100,000. Reasonable cause means an act or omission in which a covered entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated an administrative simplification provision, but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect.
A minimum of $10,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and corrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $250,000.
Aminimum of $50,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and uncorrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $1,500,000.
As required by law, OCR adjusts the CMP ranges for each penalty tier for inflation3 for violations after November 2, 2015.
Along with these potentially substantial civil penalty exposures, HIPAA’s potential criminal penalties make HIPAA compliance a required element of the Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance programs Covered Entities and their leaders need to mitigate their exposures to organizational liability under the Guidelines.
Additionally HIPAA breaches also may expose Covered Entities and their leaders to potential liability for breach liability under securities, electronic crimes, and other data breach and security laws; Federal Sentencing Guideline and other liability for misappropriation of funds, health care or other fraud and other crimes enabled by inadequate compliance or response; trigger fiduciary and other duties and liabilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for those acting as named or functional fiduciaries; I create licensing or ethical sanctions; create shareholder, tort or contractual liabilities; trigger public company disclosure and executive compensation clawback responsibilities; and a host of other legal, operational and business partner and public relations headaches.
New $1.19 Million Settlement
The $1.19 million penalty against Pain Clinic for Gulf Coast Pain Consultants, LLC d/b/a Clearway Pain Solutions Institute (“Gulf Coast Pain Consultants”) announced December 4, 2024 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) shows how quickly a Covered Entity found in violation of these rules can rack up substantial civil monetary penalties. Although specifically involving a health care provider, health plans are exposed to the same risks.
The Gulf Coast Pain Management civil monetary penalty arose from OCR’s finding of “systematic” HIPAA Security Rule violations while investigating a breach report that a former contractor for the company impermissibly accessed their electronic record system.
OCR initiated the investigation following the receipt of a breach report filed by Gulf Coast Pain Consultants, which reported that a former contractor impermissibly accessed Gulf Coast’s electronic medical record system to retrieve PHI for use in potential fraudulent Medicare claims.
OCR’s investigation revealed the breach was accomplished by a business consultant independent contractor hired to provide business consulting in 2018, whose contract was terminated prematurely a several months later before the end of the contract term.
After the contract terminated, Gulf Coast did not immediately terminate the former contractor’s system access.
Months later on February 20, 2019, Gulf Coast discovered that on three occasions, between September 7, 2018, and February 3, 2019, the Contractor impermissibly used its access to Gulf Coast’s electronic medical record (“EMR”) system to access the ePHI of approximately 34,310 individuals. On February 21, 2019, Gulf Coast terminated the independent contractor’s access to its systems.
It was later discovered that the Contractor generated medical claims for services that were not actually rendered, resulting in approximately 6,500 false Medicare claims. The Contractor was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §1347 and §1028(a)(1) and was ultimately found not guilty.
On April 5, 2019, Gulf Coast filed a breach report with OCR concerning this incident. The report described that the compromised PHI included names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, chart numbers, insurance information, and primary care information.
OCR’s investigation determined that the impermissible access occurred on three occasions, affecting approximately 34,310 individuals. The compromised PHI included patient names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, chart numbers, insurance information, and primary care information.
Based on the investigation, OCR found four violations by Gulf Coast Pain Consultant of the HIPAA Security Rule, including failures to:
Conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to determine the potential risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI in its systems;
Implement procedures to regularly review records of activity in information systems;
Implement procedures to terminate former workforce members’ access to ePHI; and
Implement procedures for establishing and modifying workforce members’ access to information systems.
As often happens, the investigation and other processes leading to the settlement were protracted and expensive.
More than four years after the breach and its report, OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Determination in August 2024 seeking to impose a civil money penalty. After Gulf Coast waived its right to a hearing and did not contest OCR’s findings, OCR issued its Notice of Final Determination imposing the $1,190,000 civil money penalty.
Take Aways
Aside from demonstrating the significant penalties that Covered Entities can face for failing to satisfy HIPAA, the settlement also highlights the need for health plans, their fiduciaries, service providers and other HiIPAA_regulated entities to manage data security threats from contractors and other current and former service providers with access to ePHI and other Security Rule compliance.
“Current and former workforce can present threats to health care privacy and security—risking continuity of care and trust in our health care system,” said OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer in its announcement of the penalty. “Effective cybersecurity and compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule means being proactive in reviewing who has access to health information and responding quickly to suspected security incidents.”
OCR recommends that Covered Entities take a number of steps to mitigate or prevent cyber threats including
Integrate risk analysis and risk management into business processes.
Implement regular review of information system activity.
Implement procedures for terminating access to ePHI when the employment of, or other arrangement with, a workforce member ends.
Implement procedures for modifying a user’s right of access to a workstation, transaction, program or process, or an alternative equivalent measure.
A multitude of other risk assessment and mitigation actions required in response to existing and emerging threats arising from time to time as identified and evaluated pursuant to the ongoing conduct of documented risk assessments required by the Security Rule.
Because the Employee Benefit Security Administration views ensuring proper data security and HIPAA compliance an ERISA fiduciary responsibility and includes cybersecurity in its ERISA compliance audits, health plan fiduciaries also face breach of fiduciary duty and other exposures under ERISA.
The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has worked extensively with health plans and insurers, their sponsors and fiduciaries on covered entities and business associates on HIPAA and other compliance and risk management. If you have questions or need advice or help evaluating or addressing your HIPAA or other compliance, risk management, or other concerns, contact her.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452-8297.
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on PBM, pharmacy and pharmaceutical and other health care, managed care, insurance, and insured and self-insured contracting, design, administration and regulation..
Author of numerous highly regarded works on PBM and other health plan contracting and design, Immediate Past Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee and the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and past Group Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with HIPAA and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.
As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; third party administrators and other health benefit service providers; hospitals, health care systems and other health care providers, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.
Author of many highly regarded compliance, training and other resources on HIPAA and other risk management and compliance, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership on HIPAA and many other health care, health plan and other health industry matters.
In addition, Ms. Stamer serves as a Scribe for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meetings with OCR and shares her thought leadership as International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
The $2.7 million settlement government contractor Insight Global LLC, (“Insight”) is paying to settle a Justice Department (“DOJ”) False Claims Act civil suit for lax cybersecurity shows government contractors now must add possible False Claims Act prosecution to the already substantial and ever-widening potential consequences all organizations and leaders when their organizations experience a cyber incident.
Supplementing the strength and reach of existing cybersecurity laws by using the False Claims Act, federal securities, employee benefit fiduciary responsibility. and other laws as tools to pressure organizations and their leaders to strengthen their cybersecurity compliance and defenses is a key component of the National Cybersecurity Strategy the Administration announced in March, 2023 to battling the ongoing pandemic of cyber incidents. As National Cybersecurity Strategy states, “Continued disruptions of critical infrastructure and thefts of personal data make clear that market forces alone have not been enough to drive broad adoption of best practices in cybersecurity and resilience. … We must hold the stewards of our data accountable for the protection of personal data; drive the development of more secure connected devices; and reshape laws that govern liability for data losses and harm caused by cybersecurity errors, software vulnerabilities, and other risks created by software and digital technologies.
The National Cyber Security Strategy goes on to warn, “We will use Federal purchasing power and grant-making to incentivize security.”
With holding businesses and their leaders accountable a key component of the Federal government’s National Cybersecurity Strategy, government contractors specifically and all businesses and their leaders generally should heed the use of the DOJ’s use of the False Claims Act as another tool in its expanding arsenal for holding businesses experiencing cyber breaches accountable as proof of their own growing imperative to manage their own cyber security and liability in response to exploding strains of cyber threats and liabilities.
Government Contractor False Claims Act Cyber Risk
DOJ’s adoption of the False Claims Act as a tool for imposing liability against government contractors experiencing a cyber breach is part of a broader effort to persuade organizations and their leaders to tighten their cyber security defenses and responses by ratcheting up the liability and other consequences organizations and their leaders face when their organizations experience a cyber incident. The False Claims Act imposes treble damages and penalties on those who knowingly and falsely claim money from the United States or knowingly fail to pay money owed to the United States.
A Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative announced by DOJ on October 6, 2021 adds potential False Claims Act civil lawsuits by DOJ or private whistleblowers to the already significant and expanding consequences government contractors and grant holders can face for failing to fulfill requirements to properly secure protected health information or other sensitive data as required in their government contracts.
According to DOJ’s May 1, 2024 announcement, Insight will pay $2.7 million to resolve DOJ False Claims Act charges for failing to have adequate cybersecurity measures to protect health information obtained during COVID-19 contact tracing under the new of the Settlement shows DOJ is following through on its promise.
$2.7 Million Insight FCA Cyber Settlement
The $2.7 million Settlement settles a whistleblower lawsuit, United States ex rel. Seilkop v. Insight Global LLC, No. 1:21-cv-1335 (M.D. Pa.). Filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act that permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government when they believe that defendants submitted false claims for government funds and to receive a share of any recovery, DOJ intervened in the suit. Whistleblower, Terralyn Williams Seilkop, a former Insight Global staff member who worked on the contact tracing at issue, will receive a $499,500 share of the $2.7 million settlement amount.
The lawsuit alleged the Pennsylvania Department of Health hired Insight to provide staffing for COVID-19 contact tracing and paid Insight using federal funds from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although keeping personal health information of contact tracing subjects confidential and secure was part on its contractual duties, Insight failed to secure the protected health information. Instead, DOJ claimed, for example, Insight transmitted certain personal health information and/or personally identifiable information of contact tracing subjects in the body of unencrypted emails, stored and transmitted the information using Google files not password protected, making them potentially accessible to the public via internet links and allowed staff to use shared passwords to access that information.
DOJ additionally alleged that from November 2020 through January 2021, Insight managers received complaints from Insight staff that protected health information was unsecure and potentially accessible to the public, but failed to start remediating the issue until April 2021 after deficiencies came to light.
When Insight eventually began remediating these cybersecurity breaches and deficiencies in 2021, the announcement states Insight cooperated with the DOJ investigation of the cause and scope of the incident. It also took steps to remedy cybersecurity deficiencies by strengthening internal controls and procedures, adding more data-security resources and issuing a public notice regarding the scope of the potential exposure and offering free credit monitoring and identity protection services to those affected. FOJ also reports Insight also cooperated with the United States’ investigation.
DOJ’s Insight settlement announcement warns other government contractors of DOJ’s “continuing commitment to ensure that government contractors fulfill their cybersecurity obligations.” Its announcement quotes Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division as stating, “The Justice Department will hold accountable those contractors who knowingly fail to satisfy cybersecurity requirements.”
Meanwhile, Special Agent in Charge Maureen R. Dixon of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) is quoted as stating “Contractors for the government who do not follow procedures to safeguard individuals’ personal health information will be held accountable.”
Cyber Risk Implications For Government Contractor & Other Organizations
Potential False Claims Act liability under the DOJ False Claims Act Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative add additional liability risks for government contractors to already substantial and growing federal and state regulatory, contractual, and civil and criminal liabilities and other consequences that cyber breaches and other cybersecurity weaknesses create for business and other organizations, their health plans and their leaders. Examples of these other exposures that lax privacy, data security, data breach and other cybersecurity practice may create include:
Business operating losses from resulting operational disruptions and damages to customer, business partner, shareholder and public trust;
Federal Sentencing Guidelines organizational criminal liability arising from violations of electronic crime and other federal criminal data privacy and security laws;
Federal Trade Commission Act and state unfair business practices liability for deceiving customers about privacy practices;
Security and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) criminal and civil actions and shareholder lawsuits under the Security and Exchange Act;
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act civil monetary penalty and criminal exposures for health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates;
Employee Benefit Security Act fiduciary liability for health fiduciaries;
Liability for violation of Fair and Accurate Transaction Act, Internal Revenue Code, or other federal privacy or confidentiality laws;
damages and other penalties and judgments arising under state identity theft, data security, privacy and other state statutory, contractual and tort laws; and
More.
These and other constantly emerging exposures show the imperative for government contractors and all other organizations and their leaders to ensure their organizations take adequate, well-documented efforts to protect their systems and data and fulfill all otherwise applicable cybersecurity rules.
With new cyber attacks and strains of cyber liability, emerging constantly, organizations, and their leaders increasingly must change the way they think about and address their own cyber security and other technology, budgets and management. The escalation of cyber incidents and risks necessitates that organizations and their leaders to treat cybersecurity as critical components of their operational and business plans and priorities.
Amid the pandemic of constantly evolving cyber threats, even the most diligent efforts to secure systems and data cannot guarantee the prevention of a breach or other cyber incident. Given this challenge, organizations and their leaders must focus both on taking meaningful steps to adequately secure their systems and data against a cyber breach or incident as well as position their organizations and leaders to defend their actions and mitigate exposures through appropriate strategic planning, documented oversight and risk assessment, monitoring and response of threats and safeguards; preparation and timely response to cyber events using attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary tools to promote the defensibility of pre-breach, breach investigation and post-breach investigation and decision-making.
As the availability of funding can radically impact the effectiveness of these and other risk mitigation efforts when a cyber incident occurs, these preparations also should incorporate insurance and other arrangements to provide for breach investigation funding and response.
If you need have questions or need assistance with this or other cybersecurity, health, benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters, contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
About the Author
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of cybersecurity, workforce, technology and other compliance, risk management and mitigation, incident and other investigations,regulatory and government affairs, and other strategic, operational, regulatory and legal and consulting management work for government contractors and other public and private businesses; managed care and other health and life science, insurance, technology, and other performance and data dependent organizations,
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership with healthcare and life sciences, employment and employee benefits, managed care and insurance, data and technology and other related industries and organizations. Known for her skill combined use of her extensive legal and operational knowledge to help these and other clients develop, operationalize and defend employment, employee benefits, compensation and other staffing and workforce; data, systems and other technology; heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance; employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational actions and practices. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Employers of salaried workers earning less than $58,656 should begin preparing either to increase the compensation or reclassify and pay those workers as hourly and entitled to overtime to comply with a final rule that will twice raise the salary thresholds required to exempt a salaried bona fide executive, administrative or professional employee from federal overtime pay requirements between July 1, 2024 and January 1, 2025.
Effective July 1, 2024, the final rule adopted April 23, 2024 will increase the salary threshold from the equivalent of an annual salary of $43,888 from the current required salary threshold of $35,568. Thereafter, the final rule further raises the salary threshold to the annual salary equivalent of $58,656 on January 1, 2025.
The July 1, 2024 salary threshold increase is based on the methodology adopted during the Trump administration in the 2019 overtime rule update. Beginning January 1, 2025, the final rule adopts a new methodology, resulting in the additional increase. In addition, the final rule will adjust the threshold for highly compensated employees. Starting July 1, 2027, salary thresholds will update every three years, by applying up-to-date wage data to determine new salary levels.
The impending changes will require employers currently employing salaried workers with annual salaries below the threshold either to increase their salaries above the threshold or to reclassify and compensate them as non-exempt employees, subject to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
When considering whether to raise salaries or reclassify, an employer should begin by reevaluating whether its salaried employees continues to meet the job duty tests to qualify for salaried status. The review of fulfillment of the job duties test should encompass both workers directly employed as employees on the employers payroll and any workers secured through contingent, workforce, employee leasing, staffing, manpower, consultant, independent contractor, or other similar service arrangements where the potential exists for reclassification of the worker as a employee of the employer or the employer as a joint employer of the employee taking into account, the more aggressive characterization enforcement positions of the Biden Administration.
Employer should conduct this review on all salaried employees, not just those whose current salary is below the upcoming increased minimum level. Reevaluation of the defensibility of all salaried workers classification is recommended because many employers mistakenly misclassify workers as salaried rather than hourly due to an overly optimistic misunderstanding of the duties requirements for a worker to qualify as salaried. The risk of misclassification is heightened under the current administrations enforcement policies. Employers who make this mistake already, or at risk for wage an hour liability for record-keeping and overtime violations for these misclassified workers. Raising the salary of a misclassified worker will only make matters worse by increasing the overtime liability that the employer will be required to pay for failure to pay overtime after the increased takes effect.
An employer should work within the scope of attorney-client privilege to conduct this analysis and implement any necessary reclassification of currently salaried workers to hourly and other steps advisable to mitigate and resolve liabilities relating to employees currently classified as salaried identified as at risk of misclassification.
Once an employer verifies that the salaried worker continues to meet the job duties test to qualify for salary status, the employer next should consider whether to reclassify or increase the salary of any salaried employees currently earning less than the increased minimum salary.
For salaried employees whose job duties make their job classification questionable, employers should work with counsel to evaluate whether restructuring of jobs could make the classification more defensible, eliminate, or reduce required overtime, or otherwise mitigate the effective reclassification or maximize the ability to defend the salary classification.
Next, an employer should analyze the economics taking into account historical and projected overtime hours of work for employees currently earning less than the minimum salary whose job duties defensively satisfy the salaried job duties test. This evaluation should compare the employer’s projected costs to employ the employee:
At an increased salary above the new minimum; versus
As an hourly employee taking into account projected overtime.
Under certain circumstances, it also may be possible to utilize rules to treat the employee as salaried, non-exempt. Employers also should consider the likely perceptual impact of the reclassification on effected workers. Many times workers view classification as salaried as a status, symbol. Particularly where workers do not work a lot of overtime, reclassification from salary to hourly status may be perceived as a status demotion by some workers. Experienced legal counsel may offer various options to assist in mitigating costs and other impacts of reclassification. Morale issues relating to the reclassification or other aspects of the workplace could create a heightened risk of scrutiny of the employers or past work classification and overtime pay requirements. As reclassifications also could result in unintended discriminatory practices, employer should work with counsel to review and document the defensibility of any job restructuring or reassignments under applicable employment discrimination laws. The employer’s planning process should anticipate these risks and utilize appropriate risk management procedures.
For employees to be reclassified from salary to hourly, employers also also must implement appropriate recordkeeping to meet the FLSA recordkeeping requirements.
Beyond complying with the applicable requirements of the FLSA, impacted employers also will want to reevaluate their budgeting, pricing, and other financial assumptions and practices in preparation of the implications of these increases.
Businesses using contract or other outsourced labor arrangements also will want to ensure that their suppliers are appropriately classifying and paying workers in response to this new adjustment. Biden Administration rules for classifying workers as employers and joint employers make it easier for recipients of these types of services to be held accountable for noncompliance with their suppliers.
Analysis generally should be conducted within the scope of attorney client privilege because of the possibility that sensitive information about worker classification or misclassification other evidence may be uncovered and discussed.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health, employee benefits, insurance, hospitality, retail, construction and other industry management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair and Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer has decades of experience advising employers, investigating and helping employers to defend wage and hour, worker classification, discrimination and other labor and employment, employee benefits and other compliance.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her experience includes extensive involvement advising clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination; EBSA, IRS, and PBGC employee benefit; WHD, CAS, Davis-Bacon and other federal and state wage and hour and other compensation; OSHA and other investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
The $265,000 Liberty Energy, Inc. doing business as Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC, will pay to settle a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of three mechanics by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) warns other employers to manage these risks.
The EEOC lawsuit alleged a Black field mechanic and two Hispanic co-workers at Liberty Energy’s Odessa, Texas location were subjected to a hostile environment and referred to with slurs such as the N-word, “beaner,” “wetback” and other derogatory terms.
The employees alleged that they made reports to supervisors, management, and human resources about the discriminatory treatment, but no effective corrective or remedial action was taken by the oil field services company.
Instead, the EEOC’s suit charged that after making his report, the Black mechanic was forced by management to perform undesirable work tasks and was isolated by his peers. With no meaningful action by company management to change the workplace atmosphere and the discriminatory assignments that followed his complaint, he was ultimately left no alternative but to resign.
The EEOC charged this conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin.
Under the two-year consent decree resolving the suit, in addition to paying $265,000 to the employees, Liberty Energy will adopt and distribute a policy for all human resources and management personnel to effectively respond to reports to discrimination; post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement; adopt and develop a 1-800 hotline for reporting acts of discrimination and/or harassment; and provide specialized training to employees on the federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including Title VII.
The suit and settlement demonstrate the need for employers to use care to prevent and manage race, national origin and other employment harassment and discrimination risks. In addition to adopting policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment, employers should conduct training, communicate and post procedures to report suspected violations, conduct carefully documented investigations and resulting discipline or other actions demonstrating their enforcement of the policies. Additionally employers need to take steps to monitor, prevent and redress harassment or other retaliation against workers for complaining or acting as witnesses for investigations. With recently released retaliation guidance, employers also should consider consulting counsel for a review of their existing processes in light of the new rules.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health, employee benefits, insurance, hospitality, retail, construction and other industry management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair and Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer has decades of experience advising employers, investigating and helping employers to defend discrimination and other labor and employment, employee benefits and other compliance.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her experience includes extensive involvement advising clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination; EBSA, IRS, and PBGC employee benefit; WHD, CAS, Davis-Bacon and other federal and state wage and hour and other compensation; OSHA and other investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
A slew of recent U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) high dollar recoveries alert restaurant and other hospitality industry employers to clean up their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage and hour, H-2B and other workforce compliance.
Popeyes Franchise- $212,000
On February 7, 2024, the Labor Department announced its recovery of $212,000 in Baxley and penalties from California Popeyes franchisee 14th St. Chicken Corp. for violations of federal child labor and wage and hour laws. The WHD says this is the third time that the it has cited the franchisee for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
The latest WHD investigation found the Popeyes fast-food chain franchiseedetermined the employer violated the FlSA by shortchanged workers by failing to pay overtime earnings for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Additionally, the investigation revealed the franchisee violated child labor rules by hiring children as young as 13-years-old and minors who worked later and longer than permitted by child labor laws at the employer’s three Oakland, Tracy and Newark locations.
Prior violations involved the Oakland and Tracy restaurants in 2003 and 2022, respectively.
For these violations, WHD
Recovered $39,826 in unpaid overtime wages and $39,826 in damages for 15 employees;
Imposed $121,104 in civil money penalties for child labor violations;
Imposed $12,104 in civil money penalties for overtime violations.
In fiscal year 2023, the Wage and Hour Division found child labor violations in more than 950 investigations, resulting in more than $8 million in penalties assessed to employers. on the recoveries.
The announcement warns the Labor Department plans to continue prioritizing child labor law investigations and enforcement quoting Wage and Hour Division Assistant District Director Alberto Raymond as saying:
The U.S. Department of Labor is determined to fight child labor violations in all sectors, including the fast-food industry.”
Sails Restaurant LLC – $184,139
On February 7, 2024, the Labor Department announced its recovery of has recovered $184,139 in back wages and liquidated damages for 56 seasonal guest workers and U.S. workers of a Naples restaurant after finding multiple violations of federal nonimmigrant work program regulations and federal minimum wage and overtime regulations.
The federal H-2B visa program permits U.S. employers to temporarily hire nonimmigrants to perform nonagricultural labor or services. However, the employment must be for a limited, specific period of time, such as a one-time occurrence, seasonal, peak load or intermittent need and the employment must comply with all the conditions for hiring applicable to that program.
The WHD says it’s investigation of Sails Restaurant LLC (Sails) found multiple violations of requirements of the H-2B worker visa program including:
Misrepresenting job requirements despite having previously used and knowing the requirements by willfully misrepresenting access to high-paid server positions with unlimited earnings potential when instead no such job existed; promotional positions out of reach for many; and shifting a dining room attendant to another job as a construction laborer;
Imposing special experience requirements for H-2B workers to qualify for jobs;
Failing to list all qualifications in the job order;
Not giving proper notices related to job termination, denying H-2B workers U.S. work status rights;
Improperly classifing jobs or excluded job tasks on work orders;
Failing to provide job orders or notify workers of their rights; and
Not reimbursing visa expenses for H-2B workers, despite being aware of the requirement.
WHD also found Sails violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by illegally keeping the tips of some H-2B and U.S. workers, failing to pay one worker their last paycheck and paying an incorrect overtime rate to tipped employees.
For these violations, WHD required Sales to pay the wrongfully denied wages and assessed $53,536 in civil money penalties.
Wage and Hour Division District Director Nicolas Ratmiroff warned, “Hospitality and food industry employers must understand that regardless of whether the employer is taking a tip credit, employers are prohibited from keeping employee tips or requiring that an employee give their tips to the employer, a supervisor, or manager.
$359,000 Retaliation Judgment
Along with complying with FLSA, child and migrant labor and other rules, employers also are cautioned to avoid retaliation against workers in violation of federal employment laws by first ever federal court order to jointly impose liability against an employer for violation of the FLSA and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).
In a December 15, 2023 judgment, a federal court ordered a Milford sports bar and its owner to pay employees a total of $359,485 in back pay, emotional distress damages, withheld compensation and punitive damages for violating the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and The OSH Act.
The retaliation judgment resulted from a Labor Department lawsuit filed against Milford Sports Bars LLC, doing business as Champions Grill and Bar, and its owner, Loren Drotos, who is also known as Mark Roberts, Mark Drotos and Mark Lawrence.
The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in February, 2022 alleged that in January 2022, the employers threatened an employee who asked the employer to pay him compensation earned then unlawfully terminated employees who participated in an inspection by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The Labor Department also alleged that, after firing employees within days of exercising these federally protected rights, the employers sought to further chill employees from engaging in protected activities and cooperating with federal investigators by sending a message to employees that they should not talk to the Labor Department.
The District Court accepted the Labor Department’s partment’s allegations as true and issued an order granting $6,770 in back pay, $2,715 in withheld wages, $125,000 in emotional distress damages and $225,000 in punitive damages to the affected employees. The court order also prohibits the employers from future violations of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and OSH Act.
According to Regional Solicitor of Labor Maia Fisher, “The court’s award of $225,000 in punitive damages and over $359,000 in damages overall sends a clear message that the U.S. Department of Labor will not tolerate such behavior.”
Restaurant & Other Hospitality Employers Should Strengthen Compliance & Risk Management
Following on the heels of other similar enforcement actions, these Labor Department actions send a clear signal that restaurant and other hospitality employees should ensure their ability to defend their compliance with the FLSA, H-2B and other foreign labor, OSHA, anti retaliation and other laws enforced by the Labor Department.
The award against Ole Jose Grill & Cantina warns other restaurant and food services employers to use card to properly classify, track hours of work and pay all required wages and overtime.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
West Virginia basedOle Jose Grill & Cantina LLC, paid $167,000 in back pay and penalties to 17 tipped employees after the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division found the employer improperly calculated their overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
FLSA & Food Service
The minimum wage, overtime, and record keeping requirements of the FLSA generally apply to all non exempt restaurant employees with some special rules.
The FLSA requires most restaurants to pay covered non-exempt workers a federal minimum wage of not less than $7.25 per hour. (State law may impose a higher minimum wage.)
An employer may take credit for food which is provided at cost. However, the employer cannot take credit for discounts given employees on food prices.
Tips received by tipped employees may be considered as part of wages, as long as the employer pays the employee not less than $2.13 an hour in direct wages and ensures that the amount of tips received is enough to meet the remainder of the minimum wage. Furthermore:
Only employees who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips qualify for treatment as tipped employees;
The employer must inform the tipped employee of the provisions of FLSA section 3(m) in advance if the employer elects to use the tip credit; and
Employees must retain all of their tips, except to the extent that they participate in a valid tip pooling or sharing arrangement.
Additionally, restaurants must pay overtime at a rate of at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
In determining the regular rate for a tipped employee, all components of the employee’s wages must be considered including cash, board, lodging, facilities, and the tip credit.
Furthermore, deductions made from wages for items such as cash shortages, required uniforms, or customer walk-outs are illegal if the deduction reduces the employee’s wages below the minimum wage or cuts into overtime pay. Deductions made for items other than board, lodging, or other recognized facilities normally cannot be made in an overtime workweek.
Ole Jose Grill & Cantina’s Violations
A Wage and Hour Division investigation found Ole Jose Grill & Cantina violated the overtime requirements of the FLSA by paying tipped employees time and one-half their cash wage for hours over 40 in a workweek instead of time and one-half the applicable minimum wage. Additionally, the investigation found Ole Jose Grill & Cantina misclassified one tipped employee as an independent contractor, paid kitchen staff a flat rate for all hours worked with no overtime premium paid and failed to keep hours worked records for the back of house kitchen employees.
For these violations, the Wage and Hour Division ordered the employer to pay a total of $83,632 in backpay and $83,632 in penalties to 17 workers.
The award against Ole Jose Grill & Cantina warns other restaurant and food services employers to use card to properly classify, track hours of work and pay all required wages and overtime.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Starting March 25, 2023, ICE will only accept the 12/20/23 editions of these Forms. Until then, it also will accept the 12/02/21 and 02/13/19 editions. Look for the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Authorities
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Giving a qualifying applicant for a work opportunity in your business might translate into Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) for your business if your business meets and follows the requirements.
WOTC is a federal tax credit available to employers for hiring individuals from certain targeted groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment. The Consolidated Appropriation Act 2021 authorized the extension of the WOTC until December 31, 2025.
Notice 2021-43, issued on August 10, 2021, provided transition relief by extending the 28-day deadline for employers hiring individuals who are Designated Community Residents or Qualified Summer Youth Employees who begin work on or after January 1, 2021, and before October 9, 2021, to submit a completed Form 8850 to the designated local agency (DLA) no later than November 8, 2021.
Notice 2020-78, issued on December 11, 2020, provided transition relief for employers that hired certain individuals residing in empowerment zones by extending the 28-day deadline for employers who submit a certification request for an individual who began work between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020.
To be eligible for the transition relief under either notice, an individual must reside within an empowerment zone.
An employer may claim the WOTC for an individual who is certified as a member of any of the following targeted groups under section 51 of the Code:
the formerly incarcerated or those previously convicted of a felony;
recipients of state assistance under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA);
veterans;
residents in areas designated as empowerment zones or rural renewal counties;
individuals referred to an employer following completion of a rehabilitation plan or program;
individuals whose families are recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008;
recipients of supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of the SSA;
individuals whose families are recipients of state assistance under part A of title IV of the SSA; and
individuals experiencing long-term unemployment.
Required Prescreaning
An employer must pre-screen and obtain certification from the appropriate Designated Local Agency (referred to as a State Workforce Agency or SWA) that an employee is a member of a targeted group to claim the credit. To satisfy the requirement to pre-screen a job applicant, on or before the day that a job offer is made, a pre-screening notice (Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice and Certification Request for the Work Opportunity Credit) must be completed by the job applicant and the employer. The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC), which preceded WOTC, did not contain a pre-screening requirement. In enacting WOTC to replace the TJTC in 1996, Congress included the requirement that employers pre-screen job applicants before or on the same day the job offer is made. In doing so, Congress emphasized that the WOTC is a subsidy designed to incentivize the hiring and employment of individuals who are members of targeted groups.
On page two of Form 8850, there are four dates that must be provided before Form 8850 can be submitted to a SWA. They are the dates that the job applicant Gave information, Was offered job, Was hired, and Started the job.
To confirm that the employer pre-screens the job applicant, and obtains information provided by the job applicant on the basis of which the employer believes that the job applicant is a member of a targeted group, the date the applicant Gave information about being a targeted group member must be a date that is the same as, or before the date the applicant Was offered job. The dates that the job applicant Was hired and Started the job must be on or after the dates the applicant Gave information and Was offered job. Form 8850 including the dates entered on page two of Form 8850, must be signed under penalties of perjury and must be submitted to the SWA (or postmarked, if mailed) no later than 28 days after the date that the job applicant Started the job.
Some individuals have a Conditional Certification (DOL-ETA Form 9062) issued by partnering agencies or SWAs. Employers can contact their SWAs for more information on Conditional Certifications. If an employer does not receive a certification on or before the day that the individual begins work, the employer must request certification by submitting Form 8850, to the SWA of the state in which their business is located (where the employee works) within 28 days of the individual beginning work.
Employers should contact their SWA with any specific processing questions for Form 8850.
Other Requirements To Claim Credit
To claim the credit for a qualifying employee, the employer and the job applicant must complete Form 8850 (Pre-Screening Notice and Certification Request for the Work Opportunity Credit). The employer has 28 calendar days from the new employee’s start date to submit Form 8850 to the designated local agency located in the state in which the business is located (where the employee works). Additional forms may be required by the DOL to obtain certification. See the Instructions to Form 8850 and the DOL Employment and Training Administration’s website on WOTC for more information.
Following receipt of a certification from the designated local agency that the employee is a member of one of the 10 targeted groups, taxable employers file Form 5884 (Work Opportunity Credit) and tax-exempt employers file Form 5884-C (Work Opportunity Credit for Qualified Tax-Exempt Organizations Hiring Qualified Veterans) to claim the WOTC. See the Instructions to Form 5884 and Form 5884-C for more information. Additionally, see the LB&I and SB/SE Joint Directive on the Work Opportunity Tax Credit that the IRS issued to help certain employers affected by extended delays in the WOTC certification process.
Limitations on the Credit
The credit is limited to the amount of the business income tax liability or Social Security tax owed.
A taxable business may apply the credit against its business income tax liability. In general, taxable employers may carry the current year’s unused WOTC back one year and then forward up to 20 years. See the instructions for Form 3800, General Business Credit, for more details.
For qualified tax-exempt organizations, the credit is limited to the amount of employer Social Security tax owed on the total taxable social security wages and tips reported by the organization for the employment tax period for which the credit is claimed.
Also, employers participating in other tax credit work incentive programs should consider the potential impact on seeking the WOTC before applying. Generally, wages used to calculate the WOTC cannot be used to calculate other wage-based credits. However an employer may be able to claim more than one wage-based credit for the same employee. Provided the same wages are not used to calculate each credit, an employer may be able to claim the WOTC and another credit such as the American Rescue Plan’s Employee Retention Credit (ERC), the Empowerment Zone Employment Credit, the Employer Credit for Paid Family and Medical Leave, and the ERC for employers affected by qualified disasters, among others. For example, a small business can combine the WOTC with the American Rescue Plan’s ERC and claim both credits on wages paid to the same employee, provided that any wages used to calculate the WOTC are not also used to calculate the ERC.
After the required certification is received, taxable employers claim the credit as a general business credit on Form 3800 against their income tax by filing the following:
The employer’s business’s related income tax return and instructions (for example, Forms 1040 or 1040-SR, 1041, 1120, etc.)
Procedures are different for tax-exempt versus taxable organizations. Qualified tax-exempt organizations described in IRC Section 501(c), and exempt from taxation under IRC Section 501(a), may claim the credit for qualified veterans who begin work for the organization before 2026.
After the required certification is received, tax-exempt employers claim the credit against the employer’s share of Social Security tax by separately filing Form 5884-C, Work Opportunity Credit for Qualified Tax-Exempt Organizations Hiring Qualified Veterans. Each Form 5884-C determines the cumulative credit the organization is entitled to for all periods. The amount of the cumulative credit is reduced by the previously claimed credits and increased by any previously repaid amounts to determine the credit claimed for the employment tax period for which the Form 5884-C is filed. If the credit refunded for a prior period was limited by the employer’s social security tax liability for that period, any credit not refunded will be carried forward and included in the cumulative credit determined on any subsequent Form 5884-C.
The employer files Form 5884-C after filing the related employment tax return for the period for which the credit is claimed. The IRS recommends that qualified tax-exempt employers do not reduce their required deposits in anticipation of any credit. The credit will not affect the employer’s Social Security tax liability reported on the organization’s employment tax return.
As with all tax and workforce dealings, businesses should consult with experienced legal counsel and their tax advisors to fully understand the potential implications and requirements of hiring and participating in the programs.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
Columbia, Mississippi-based Singley Construction Company, Inc., faces an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit that charges the employer violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to accommodate an employee’s disability by allowed ng her to undergo dialysis in its workplace and then retaliating against her for requesting the accommodation and filing a charge with the EEOC.
The ADA requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ disabilities unless the employer proves the accommodation is unreasonable, would impose an undue hardship, is prohibited by law or creates material safety threats to the employee or others. Additionally, the ADA prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation against employees for requesting accommodations, filing charges with the EEOC or Wang aging in other actions protected by the ADA.
In its suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00106-KS-MTP) on July 31, 2023, the EEOC charges that Singley refused to accommodate its office manager’s end-stage renal disease by refusing the employee’s request to perform continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) on Singley’s premises so that she could maintain her full-time work schedule. According to the EEOC, this denial forced the office manager to lose around 50% of her work hours and pay as she had to regularly leave work to undergo her dialysis treatments. The EEOC further alleged that Singley constructively discharged the employee because of her disability and in retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation and for filing an EEOC charge.
The EEOC seeks monetary damages for the employee including back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.
The EEOC contends the employer had a duty to allow her to undergo dialysis at work. “Employees on dialysis have rights under the ADA so that they can maintain their employment,” said Marsha Rucker, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District. “Employers would be well advised to recognize the right of workers to request reasonable accommodation for disabilities and to receive reasonable accommodation for disabilities absent undue hardship and direct threat. When businesses ignore these rights, the EEOC will hold them accountable.”
The lawsuit highlights the need for employers to use care when dealing with employees requesting accommodation in their workplaces.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government, and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability, and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about the preparation of workforce, health care, and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day-to-day operations, through times of crisis or change, and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.
Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress, and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.
A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community, and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension, and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration, and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, and other management practices and actions.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training, and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls, and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Discrimination lawsuits against employers are common. Suits against unions are rare. However that’s what’s happening to Sunnybrook Education Association, IEA-NEA, (“Sunnybrook Union”), a labor union representing teachers and educational support personnel in the Sunnybrook School District.
In the lawsuit EEOC v. Sunnybrook Education Association, IEA-NEA, 1:23-cv-02804) filed in the U.S. District Court of Illinois, Northern District, Eastern Division today, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charges Sunnybrook Union with violating federal civil rights law by blocking the promotion of an African American custodian to the role of head custodian because of his race,
The EEOC said that Sunnybrook Union grieved the promotion of a Black employee of Sunnybrook School District 171 rather than ignoring the promotion or negotiating a memorandum of understanding, as it had done in other cases where non-Black employees received promotions or salaries that did not conform to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).
The lawsuit charges this conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits labor organizations from discriminating against members on the basis of race and causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual because of their race, sex, religion, or other protected class. The EEOC is seeking full relief, including back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and a commitment from the union to permit the employee to receive his promotion and raise.
Comments of EEOC officials about the lawsuit show the EEOC is serious about prosecution of workplace race discrimination whether committed by labor or management. “The Sunnybrook Union should be opening doors for the employees it represents, not standing in the way of their advancement,” said Gregory Gochanour, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “Here, we have an employee doing the job of a head custodian but prevented from receiving the benefits of that job because of his race.”
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day to day operations, through times of change and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.
Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other and health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.
A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
Group health plans and insurers must ensure their programs don’t violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) by improperly limiting or excluding coverage for the treatment of autism or mental therapy developmental disorders.
MHPAEA requires group health plans and health insurance issuers that offer mental health benefits to ensure that mental health benefit financial requirements and nonquantitative treatment limitations are generally no more restrictive than those applied to medical/surgical benefits. The Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) has identified MHPAEA autism and other mental health and substance abuse coverage enforcement as a key priority in its current fiscal year enforcement plan. Violation of its prohibitions is costly. Aside from any costs of providing wrongfully denied coverage and defense costs for resulting investigations and enforcement, violations generally also trigger that the employer is accountable for self-identifying, reporting and paying excise tax penalties imposed for MHPAEA violations under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to avoid even more penalties unless an exception applies.
Although many diagnosticians and courts consider autism a neurological rather than psychological disorder, EBSA often interprets and enforces MHPAEA as applicable to Applied Behavior (ABA) therapy and other treatment for autism, For instance, an EBSA Benefits Advisor stepped in to assist a Seattle family encountering difficulty communicating with their health plan regarding claims for their child the plan reprocessed the claims, resulting in an additional $20,000 of coverage. Another parent contacted an EBSA Benefits Advisor in the Dallas Regional Office for assistance with claims that had not been paid. After the Advisor contacted the plan to resolve the issue, this family received approximately $24,000 they were owed.
EBSA also has taken more formal enforcement actions in other instances. For example, EBSA’s Los Angeles Regional Office recently investigated a large service provider that excluded coverage for ABA therapy in hundreds of self-insured plans. The EBSA investigation resulted in 3 plans removing their exclusion for ABA therapy and offering coverage for that benefit moving forward, affecting more than 18,000 participants and their beneficiaries.
Meanwhile, an investigation by EBSA’s Chicago and Dallas Regional Offices into an ABA therapy exclusion resulted in a large claims administrator adding ABA therapy as a default coverage option for all of its self-insured plans. This correction resulted in the elimination of the exclusion of ABA therapy for autism for nearly one million participants.
To protect access to autism benefits, EBSA also works closely with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For example, EBSA assisted HHS’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in investigating an improper appeals process following the denial of coverage for autism treatment by a plan for a large school district. In the end, the plan reimbursed a total of $2,464 in unpaid claims to the participant.
The actions relating to ABM therapy and other autism-related treatment are part of a broader, high-priority EBSA and Department of Health and Human Services MHPAEA compliance and enforcement initiative which prioritizes enforcement of compliance by health plans and health insurers with MHPAEA’s mandates that health plans and insurance policies of covered health plans and insurers comply with its requirement of parity in the coverage provided for mental health and substance abuse care as compared to other care. To fulfill these requirements, health plans and insurers covered by MHPAEA must be prepared to produce documentation of their audit and analysis to demonstrate that any quantitative or qualitative requirements applicable to mental health or substance abuse coverage in form or operation are not greater than those applied to other comparable benefits. Meeting this burden generally requires significant documented analysis regarding the plan design and administration taking into complicated HPAEA regulations. Additionally, health plans and insurers also should ensure that their administrative practices and notifications comply with additional MHPAEA requirements applicable to claim determinations involving adverse benefit determinations for mental health or substance abuse treatment, as well as otherwise applicable Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and for insured plans or policies, state insurance rules.
In the face of these and other enforcement actions, group health plans, their sponsors, their insurers, fiduciaries, administrators and employer and other MHPAEA-covered health benefit program sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators are urged to seek review and advice from legal counsel experienced with MHPAEA and other rules impacting autism diagnosis and treatment coverage about the adequacy and defensibility of their health program as it relates to coverage for autism and other developmental disabilities.
Additionally, employers also are reminded that autism and other developmental and neurological disorders also generally qualify as disabilities qualify for protection against discrimination and require accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Along with the EBSA enforcement, private participants and beneficiaries of private employer-sponsored health plans also can bring lawsuits to recover benefits and other relief for violations of MHPAEA. Along with the actual damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement, a successful MHPAEA enforcement also typically will reveal the sponsoring employer or union’s failure to make the required self-disclosure and excise tax payments mandated for violations under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D, triggering added penalties beyond the initial penalties triggered by the uncorrected violation. Furthermore, delayed discovery of these violations also makes correction particularly costly for self-insured plans and their sponsors as deadlines for submitting expenses to qualify for stop loss reimbursement often will have passed by the time the liability comes to light. Accordingly, employer and other health plan sponsors, their fiduciaries and adminstrators generally will want to audit and monitor their health plan’s compliance with the MHPAEA throught the calendar year and as plan year or stop loss filing deadlines approach to mitigate these exposures.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pandemic and other health and safety, financial, workforce and other organizational crisis, change and workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 30 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about the preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day-to-day operations, through times of change and in response to operational, health care, natural disaster, economic and other crisis and change.
Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health care, health and other benefits, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.
A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
Nursing home and rehabilitation operator Symphony Deerbrook, LLC’s $400,000 payment and other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) warns other health industry and other employers about the risk of imposing special pregnancy notice, doctors, release and testing requirements on pregnant employees.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Symphony implemented a policy requiring employees to inform the company of any pregnancy and to obtain a note from their doctor releasing them to work without restrictions. The EEOC also alleged that Symphony denied employees with pregnancy-related restrictions reasonable accommodations and terminated them though other employees with similar restrictions were provided accommodations.
The EEOC charged these actions violatesd the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(K) and 2000e-(2)(a)(1) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(C)(4)(a).
The Pregnancy Act prohibits employers from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and requires that employers treat pregnant employees the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.
The ADA which prohibits employee medical examinations that are not job related or consistent with business necessity.
The consent decree settling the suit requires Symphony to pay $400,000, which will be distributed among 11 affected employees. The two-and-a-half-year decree enjoins Symphony from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in the future, including denying pregnant workers job modifications available to other similar employees and requiring pregnant employees to obtain doctor’s notes stating that they can work without restriction.
In 2021, Symphony sold the facility to Pearl of Joliet, who agreed for purposes of settlement to provide anti-discrimination training to all its employees at the facility, to post a notice about the resolution of the law lawsuit, and to report to EEOC certain types of information during the decree’s term. The EEOC has not alleged that Pearl engaged in any discrimination.
Suits and settlements like Symphony’s send a clear warning against discrimination based on pregnancy by health care providers and other employers. Healthcare and other organizations concerned about the safety of pregnant women working in particular positions should ask experienced legal counsel for assistance in managing the occupational health and safety risks, if any for pregnant or other employees without running afoul of discrimination prohibitions.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, scholarship and thought leadership.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here including the following recent updates:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
A federal court order against a Brewster home care provider shows some key things an employer should not do when facing a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or other Labor Department investigation. With Labor Department wage and hour and other employment and labor law enforcement soaring under the Biden Administration’s pro-employee agenda, all employers should learn from the schooling this and other noncompliant employers are receiving from the Labor Department and courts.
Sunrise Home Health Care, Inc. & Owner Injunction For FLSA Investigation interference & Retaliation
The Labor Department obtained a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 1, 2023 ordering Sunrise Home Care Inc. and owner Elsa Silva to stop retaliating against employees in an effort to obstruct the wage and Hour Division’s FLSA investigation.
According to the Labor Department complaint, when the Wage and Hour Division began an investigation to evaluate the employers’ compliance with the FLSA in January 2023, Silva has harassed and intimidated employees repeatedly by
Asking workers about their communications with investigators;
instructing workers to provide false information;
Telling employees she would have to close the business and they would lose their jobs if the investigation determined she had to pay overtime premiums; and
Pressuring employees to agree to return to the employers any monies owed to employees as a result of the investigation.
The court order secured by the Labor Department forbids Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. from doing the following:
Violating the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.
Threatening employees with termination or other retaliatory actions or taking any other actions to prevent them from participating in the Department’s investigation or in any other FLSA-protected activity.
Obstructing and interfering, in any way, with the investigation.
Telling workers not to cooperate with investigators or to provide incomplete or false information to them.
Questioning employees about their cooperation or communications with investigators.
Advising current and former employees that they must “kickback” or return any back wages the department may determine they are owed.
Communicating with any employee regarding the investigation without first informing the employee that they may communicate with investigators voluntarily and not be discriminated against for doing so.
The court order secured by the Labor Department also orders Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. to:
Permit division representatives to read aloud – in English, Spanish, Portuguese and any other language understood by most employees – a statement describing employees’ FLSA rights during their paid working hours and in the presence of the defendants.
Mail a written statement of the same to current and former employees.
Provide a written notice to the Wage and Hour Division at least seven days before terminating an employee for any reason.
The injunctive relief issued by the Court seeks to allows the Labor Department investigation to continue without further employer obstruction. Aside from any contempt sanctions Sunrise and Silva could incur for violating the court’s order, the alleged threats and retaliation also could serve as a basis for the assessment of additional liability as a sanction for the employee’s prohibited retaliation beyond any backpay and penalty awards the Labor Department finds the employer owes for failing to pay wages or keep records.
FLSA Liability Risks High; Learn From Other Employer’s Mistakes
Other employees and their management should learn from the schooling the court ordered against Sunrise and Silva and avoid engaging in the actions prohibited by the court order when facing their own FLSA or other Labor Department investigation.
The Labor Department views audit, investigation and enforcement of the FLSA compliance and violations a key priority and employers risk significant liability for violations from Wage and Hour Division or private enforcement.
Enforcement by the Labor Department and private litigants of minimum wage, overtime, child labor, human trafficking and other laws is increasingly common. the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division concludes approximately 21,000 Fair Labor Standards Act cases, impacting over 200,000 workers each year. Over the last five years, Wage and Hour has collected more than $1 billion in back wages for workers in America. But the Department of Labor recognizes that back wages alone provide insufficient compensation to employees for lost wages. Although actual enforcement dipped slightly over the past two years due to the disruption in the Wage and Hour Division’s staffing and operation during the COVID-19 health care emergency, its announcement of a stream of FLSA enforcement actions reflects it is resuming its zealous enforcement. See WHD FLSA and Other Statistics. Therefore, liquidated damages are intended to compensate workers for damages they may have incurred as the result of not having been paid timely for all the wages they legally earned.
Employers found in violation of these rules enforcement actions face actual damages, interest, civil monetary penalties, enforcement costs, and in the case of willful violations, even potential criminal sanctions. While the Labor Department during the Trump Presidency suspended its pursuit of collection of liquidated damages authorized under the FLSA Generous recoveries also make private enforcement very attractive to employees and plaintiffs’ counsel, this leniency ended after President Biden took office. Since April 9, 2021, Labor Department wage and hour law enforcement policy includes pursuing the implementation and collection of liquidated damages in addition to back pay and interest due for unpaid wages from employers found in violation of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws. Private litigants can recover actual damages plus double damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. The availability of these extraordinary damages and recoveries makes these highly popular cases to many plaintiffs’ attorneys.
As demonstrated by the Exxon injunction, employers facing wage and hour investigations, audits or even employee inquiries or underpayment assertions other should keep in mind that actions by the employer that could be viewed as interference with an investigation by the Labor Department as well as improperly handled employee questions or statements of concern about potential FLSA and other related requirements can create retaliation or whistleblower risks. Accordingly, employers should use care to investigate and respond carefully to these concerns, addressing workers during the conduct of a Labor Department audit, investigation or enforcement action and in handling subsequent discipline or other employment decisions involving workers raising them.
Along with FLSA claims, these violations also can trigger state wage an hour, payday act and other liabilities.
Many businesses experience difficulties defending wage and hour and other FLSA claims due to lax timekeeping and recordkeeping practices, misclassification of workers as contract labor or exempt, failure to include nondiscretionary bonus or other required compensation or hours of work when calculating overtime liability and other common mistakes.
Businesses also should use care to manage their potential exposure to joint employer or other liability for unpaid wages, overtime or other FLSA violations committed by subcontractors, contract labor companies, staffing or other businesses providing workers. Businesses can face imputed liability for violations committed by these other organizations when the facts and circumstances show the business exercises sufficient control over the details of the details of the worker’s work to qualify as a common law employer, whether the relationship between the business and the provider of worker qualifies as a “joint employment” relationship under the rules applicable to FLSA and National Labor Relations Act determinations for joint employment or certain other situations. he Wage and Hour Division also has propose adoption of a regulation to govern classification of workers as employees versus independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA, which if adopted, would heighten the likelihood that many workers considered contractors by businesses could be reclassified by the Labor Department as employees for FLSA and other wage and hour law purposes. The comment period for that regulation closed in December, 2022. Government contractors and subcontractors also may bear responsibility for contracting with subcontractors and taking other steps to ensure that these subcontracting entities comply with government contract wage requirements and the FLSA.
Misunderstandings about when workers are classified as employees versus contractors, exempt versus non-exempt, and regarding the appropriate tracking, counting, and reporting of hours work increasingly play a major role in aiding Labor Department or plaintiff’s successful enforcement and increase employer liability. Many employers failure to appreciate the significance of statutory presumptions of the existence of an employment relationship and of non-exempt status on the burden of proof the employer must meet to defend its treatment of a worker as a nonemployee or exempt employee. Many employers also fail to recognize the significance of special FLSA rules for characterization of workers as employees, the risk of reclassification of workers the employer considers as contractors or through staffing, day labor or other labor subcontractors as their employees or joint employees. Equally common are misconceptions about the narrowness of the rules for treating employees as exempt and eligible for payment on a salary rather than hourly basis. These mistakes also create a heightened risk that the employer will failed to track necessary Information to defend against employee or Labor Department hours of work claims, overtime or minimum wage claim as well as fuel additional liability for failing to comply with FLSA rules for tracking reporting of hours work. These misperceptions also often lead misinformed employers to take actions that provide a basis for retaliation claims. The Labor Department and private litigant leverage these mistakes to achieve their recoveries.
Because these audits often uncover violations or lead to sensitive conversations about the classification and payment of workers under the FLSA and other laws, employers and their leaders generally should arrange for this analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney client privilege under the direction of a lawyer experienced in FLSA and other employment law compliance.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, scholarship and thought leadership.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends businesses on FLSA, CAS, SCA, Davis-Bacon, Equal Pay Act and other wage and hour, compensation and benefit and other Human Resources, Guideline Program and other compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.
Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
The Justice Department announced the launch of a new nationwide Law Enforcement Language Access Initiative (“LEP Initiative”) to help law enforcement agencies meet obligations to provide meaningful language assistance to limited English proficient (LEP) individuals along with driving home it’s commitment to enforce these LEP obligations by announcing a LEP investigation resolution with the Denver Police Department.
LEP Initiative
The Civil Rights Division’s Federal Coordination and Compliance Section in partnership with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will lead the new LEP Initiative. Specifically, the initiative will:
Develop technical assistance resources and tools that can assist local and state law enforcement agencies in their efforts to provide meaningful language access to LEP individuals and populations within their jurisdiction.
Affirmatively engage law enforcement agencies that want to review, update, and/or strengthen their language access polices, plans and training.
Leverage collaboration with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to conduct trainings in communities across the country to increase awareness of language access obligations and encourage widespread adoption of best practices by law enforcement agencies.
Strengthen the department’s ties and engagement with LEP community stakeholders and LEP populations.
“Providing law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to ensure effective and meaningful language access promotes and advances greater safety for limited English proficient people,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Through this Initiative, we will be able to share these language access best practices and similar resources with law enforcement agencies all across the country.”
Denver LEP Resolution Agreement
Coincident with announcing the LEP Initiative, the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado announced an agreement to resolve an investigation into allegations that the Denver Police Department (DPD) discriminated on the basis of national origin against LEP individuals in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance.
The Justice Department’s investigation of the DPD began after community members raised concerns about incidents involving Burmese and Rohingya-speaking LEP residents living in the East Colfax area of Denver. The Justice Department says it’s investigation revealed numerous instances where DPD officers either failed to provide language assistance to LEP individuals or provided language assistance that was ineffective or inappropriate. For example, the investigation uncovered situations where children, family members and bystanders were relied upon for language assistance, including in circumstances where more reliable and objective language assistance should have been provided.
As part of this settlement agreement, the DPD has agreed to implement a series of changes to its language access policies, procedures and training, including:
Updating its Language Access Policy and Plan in order to establish procedures for communicating with LEP individuals, including witnesses and suspects, and to prohibit the use of children, family members, or bystanders to communicate with LEP individuals, except in exigent circumstances;
Appointing its first-ever LEP Coordinator and establish Language Access Points of Contact (LAPCs) in every DPD district;
Training all DPD employees and new recruits on identifying, communicating with, and documenting interactions with LEP individuals; and
Creating a Language Access Committee that includes stakeholders representing LEP community interests.
The Justice Department announcement of the LEP Initiative in conjunction with the DPD and other growing series of investigations and enforcement demonstrates the strength of the Biden Administration’s continuing emphasis on the advancement of LEP and other civil rights and their enforcement in the public and private sector.
Public sector, organizations and agencies facing investigation commonly face threats to their federal funding if compliance deficiencies are found in an investigation.
Healthcare, educational, government, funded housing, and government contractors can expect discrimination, prosecution and sanctions, federal program, exclusion, or funding, and other sanctions in response to a finding of noncompliance.
Meanwhile, all other covered entities at minimum face, the threat of lawsuits brought by the government, private, litigants, or both.
Even when these enforcement actions are resolve, a bolster negotiation, the expenses of defense and correction can be high. The sanctions, cost of defense and other anticipated fall out where they violations are indefensible, or so great that negotiation of a reasonable resolution is difficult present even greater risks and costs. To mitigate exposure to these risks and costs, all organizations should review their current practices and training to shore up their efforts, in anticipation of a possible complaint or investigation.
Organizations should seek help from experienced legal counsel to design and train their operations leaders and team about appropriate practices and should seek the advice of legal counsel with investigation of complaints or other concerns, questions or any other issues about the adequacy of practices, documentation or other concerns impacting their compliance with these and other discrimination and civil rights practices in light of this emphasis. Organizations also should be careful to avoid any actions that might be construed as retaliation. Parties raising concerns should be carefully dealt with as the expression of these concerns could provide a basis for complaints, as well as complaints or prosecution for retaliation.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of advising, representing and defending domestic and international public, closely held and government organizations on workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and governance, and other risk management, compliance and government relations concerns as well as her coaching, scholarship, training and legislative and public affairs advocacy on these and related areas.
Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 35 year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, ICE, DOJ, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement and other strategic and operational concerns.
Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, expat and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.
Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence workforce, health care, pension, social security, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.
Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.
Ms. Stamer also shares her leadership through her extensive involvement in many professional, community and civic organizations. Currently, she serves as Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR and a representative for its Annual Agency Meeting with the EEOC, Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA Tort & Insurance Section (TIPS) Medicine and Law Committee, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Committee Welfare Plan Chair, and in various other projects and capacities. She also previously has served as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, the Society for Human Resources Management Region IV Board Chair and National Consultant’s Board Member; am Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for HR.com, Insurance ThoughtLeaders, BNA CD-Rolm, and Employee Benefits News; the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence Board President, Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, on the North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, as a Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas and many others.
Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. These include hundreds of highly regarded articles and workshops on health and other benefits, workforce, health care and insurance concerns.
For more information about these requirements, Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
The filing window to submit an H-2B Application for Temporary Employment Certification (Form ETA-9142B and appendices) requesting work start dates of April 1, 2023, or later, opens January 1, 2023, at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Employers submitting H-2B visa applications in 2023 should prepare to file the newly required Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-7, Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrant Workers Under Section 204 of Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law 117-103, and Public Law 117-180 (the “Form”).
OFLC has announced that following OFLC’s standard operating procedures, H-2B applications requesting an April 1, 2023, work start date will be denied if they are filed before January 1, 2023, at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time. OFLC plans to randomly order for processing all H-2B applications requesting a work start date of April 1, 2023, filed during the initial three calendar days (January 1-3, 2023) using the randomization procedures published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2019. Each day, from January 3, 2023 through January 6, 2023, OFLC will publish on the Foreign Labor Application Gateway System website the number of H-2B applications it has received to date and the total number of requested worker positions on those applications. Employers, workers awaiting these visas and other stakeholders should monitor the Gateway to assess the continued availability of the allotted H-2B visas.
Meanwhile, the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration on December 16, 2022 published a notice announcing the 2023 AEWR for herding or production of livestock on the range in the Federal Register. The AEWR for occupations involving herding or production of livestock on the range is new for the H-2A Program. AEWRs are the minimum wage rates the Department of Labor has determined must be offered and paid by employers to H-2A workers and workers in corresponding employment to help ensure the Department meets its statutory obligation to certify that the employment of H-2A foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages of agricultural workers in the U.S. similarly employed. Employers affected by this mandated minimum wage rates should account for these rates in their budgeting and compliance activities.
The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (“OFLC”) announced December 19, 2022 that employers requesting H-2B visas to hire nonimmigrant workers under the FY2023 cap increase must complete and submit the new the new Form. The Form and its instruction currently available for immediate use by employees here. Employers planning to request H-2B visas should obtain and begin preparing the Form along with their applications to be ready to file when the 2023 application window open January 1, 2023.
For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs
If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”
For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.
Other Helpful Resources & Information
If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.
Two mass shootings of workers at Walmarts in Virginia in less than a month and a series of other recent workplace shootings around the country should prompt other employers to evaluate the adequacy of their own workplace violence safeguards under and other laws.
As demonstrated by the already filed state lawsuit filed by an employee of the Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart where a supervisor fatally shot six people in October, 2022, see here, businesses experiencing workplace violence events typically face OSHA and other investigations, lawsuits and critical media and public scrutiny. A well-documented and administered workplace violence safety plan can help mitigate legal and other risks.
The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“OSHA”) generally considers protecting workers against workplace violence part of an employer’s general duty to make the workplace safe under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“(OSH Act”).
OSHA defines “workplace violence” as including any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors.
Many business leaders underestimate their organization’s workplace violence risk. Workplace violence is a much more common problem than most American business leaders realize. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), reported workplace injury data reflects there were 392 workplace homicides in 2020, the most recent year for which BLS has published data. There were also 37,060 nonfatal injuries in the workplace resulting from an intentional injury by another person. The five occupational groups with the most workplace homicides in 2020 were sales and related, transportation and material moving, management, construction and extraction, and production. Homicides in sales and related occupations accounted for 23.5 percent of all workplace homicides in 2020. See here.
Research has identified factors that may increase the risk of violence for some workers at certain worksites, such as exchanging money with the public, working with volatile, unstable people, working alone or in isolated areas, providing services and care, working where alcohol is served, time of day and location of work, Among those with higher-risk are workers who exchange money with the public, delivery drivers, healthcare professionals, public service workers, customer service agents, law enforcement personnel, and those who work alone or in small groups.
In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions.
OSHA believes that a well-written and implemented workplace violence prevention program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and federal workplaces. Therefore, OSHA expects employers to assess their worksites to identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring and adopt and implement an appropriate plan.
There are currently no specific OSHA standards for workplace violence. Rather the guidance contemplates each business will tailor an appropriate plan to fit its operations. OSHA provides various resources to aid employers ti DD slop their organization’s plan. The employer is responsible for tailoring an appropriate policy; the guidance strongly suggests including a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence covering all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.
OSHA has developed Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence, which provides guidance and procedures to be followed when conducting inspections and issuing citations related to the occupational exposure to workplace violence. These procedures also provide insight for employers to tailor their plans and practices. Including policies for emergency response, investigation and remediation also is advisable.
The plan can be a separate workplace violence prevention program or can be incorporated into a safety and health program, employee handbook, or manual of standard operating procedures. Employers are responsible for ensuring all workers know the policy and understand that all claims of workplace violence will be investigated and remedied promptly. In addition, OSHA encourages employers to develop additional methods as necessary to protect employees in high risk industries.
In developing and administering their workplace violence policies, employers should seek both to prevent workplace violence and build a record that can help the employer defend against or mitigate legal and other business risks in the event of an incident. Employers also should reevaluate and update their policies and practices in response to events within their own or other workplaces as necessary. Working with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege may help strengthen the risk assessment and policy design, while insulating sensitive discussions and analysis with the attorney-client communication or work product privileges.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of advising, representing and defending domestic and international public, closely held and government organizations on workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and governance, and other risk management, compliance and government relations concerns as well as her coaching, scholarship, training and legislative and public affairs advocacy on these and related areas.
Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 35 year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement and other strategic and operational concerns.
Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, expat and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.
Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence workforce, health care, pension, social security, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.
Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.
Ms. Stamer also shares her leadership through her extensive involvement in many professional, community and civic organizations. Currently, she serves as Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR and a representative for its Annual Agency Meeting with the EEOC, Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA Tort & Insurance Section (TIPS) Medicine and Law Committee, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Committee Welfare Plan Chair, and in various other projects and capacities. She also previously has served as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, the Society for Human Resources Management Region IV Board Chair and National Consultant’s Board Member; am Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for HR.com, Insurance ThoughtLeaders, BNA CD-Rolm, and Employee Benefits News; the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence Board President, Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, on the North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, as a Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas and many others.
Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. These include hundreds of highly regarded articles and workshops on health and other benefits, workforce, health care and insurance concerns.
For more information about these requirements, Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
The U.S Department of Homeland Security is inviting public comment on proposed regulations (the “Proposed Rule”) defining the rules DHS will apply to decide when a noncitizen is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because the person is likely at any time to become a “public charge.” The proposed rules could affect workers or family members of workers who are noncitizens seeking to renew visas who have accessed certain public assistance while in the United States as well as noncitizens seeking new visas to enter the United States. The deadline for submitting comments is April 25, 2022.
Public Charge Rule Generally
Under Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, an applicant for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status generally is inadmissible if the applicant “is likely at any time to become a public charge” The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies to individuals applying for a visa to come to the United States temporarily or permanently, for admission, or for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.By statute, however, some categories of noncitizens such as refugees; asylees; certain T and U nonimmigrant visa applicants (human trafficking and certain crime victims, respectively); and certain self-petitioners under the Violence against Women Act are exempt from the public charge inadmissibility ground. Also the DHS Secretary possesses discretionary authority to waive public charge inadmissibility for a noncitizen that provides a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary.INA Section 235 addresses the inspection of applicants for admission, including inadmissibility determinations of such applicants and INA Section 245 generally establishes eligibility criteria for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
Public Charge Proposed Rule Highlights
The Proposed Rule would consider a noncitizen likely at any time to become a public charge if he or she is likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. The Proposed Rule also would establish:
How DHS proposes to identify the types of public benefits that would be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination;
General principles regarding consideration of current and past receipt of public benefits in public charge inadmissibility determinations
Factors that DHS would consider in prospectively determining, under the totality of the circumstances framework, whether an applicant for admission or adjustment of status before DHS is inadmissible under the public charge ground.
Changes to existing information collections submitted with applications for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident to include questions relevant to the statutory minimum factors.
A requirement that all written denial decisions issued by USCIS to applicants reflect consideration of each of the statutory minimum factors, as well as the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA where required, consistent with the standards set forth in the Proposed Rule, and specifically articulate the reasons for the officer’s determination.
The proposed regulation, if adopted as proposed, would implement the following major changes:
Amend 8 CFR 212.18, Application for waivers of inadmissibility in connection with an application for adjustment of status by T nonimmigrant status holders. This section clarifies that T nonimmigrants seeking adjustment of status are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
Add 8 CFR 212.20, Applicability of public charge inadmissibility. This section identifies the categories of noncitizens who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
Add 8 CFR 212.21, Definitions. This section establishes key regulatory definitions: Likely at any time to become a public charge, public cash assistance for income maintenance, long-term institutionalization at government expense, receipt (of public benefits), and government.
• Add 8 CFR 212.22, to clarify that evaluating the likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge is a prospective determination based on the totality of the circumstances. This section provides details on how the statutory minimum factors, as well as an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, if required, and current or past receipt of public benefits would be considered when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. This section also states that the fact that an applicant has a disability, as defined by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), will not alone be a Start Printed Page 10572 sufficient basis to determine whether the noncitizen is likely at any time to become a public charge. This section also includes categories of noncitizens whose past or current receipt of public benefits will not be considered in a public charge inadmissibility determination.
Add 8 CFR 212.23, Exemptions and waivers for public charge ground of inadmissibility, which will provide a list of statutory and regulatory exemptions from and waivers of the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
Amends 8 CFR 245.23, Adjustment of aliens in T nonimmigrant classification, which will clarify T nonimmigrants seeking adjustment of status are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
The Proposed Rule differs from the previous regulation DHS published on August 14, 2019 on the pubic charge rule, which is no longer in effect. Rather than continuing Trump Administration efforts to defend the prior regulation against various litigation challenges then pending before the United States Supreme Court, the Biden Administration announced its withdrawal of the prior regulation to reconsider its provisions, resulting in the termination of that litigation. The proposed regulation reflects the results of the Biden Administration’s new approach to the rule making, which many perceive as more generous to noncitizen applicants in various respects. The Preamble to the proposed regulation reflects the Biden Administration’s view that the 2019 Final Rule expanded DHS’s definition of “public charge,” in a manner ‘associated with widespread indirect effects on noncitizens were not even subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households. According to the Preamble to the Proposed Rule, although the 2019 Final Rule imposed heavy paperwork burdens while the 2019 Final Rule was in place DHS only denied 3 of the 47,555 applications for adjustment of status to which the rule was applied and DHS subsequently reopened and approved those 3.
Potential Implications On Employers, Health Care Organizations & Others
The implications of the Proposed Rule vary depending on the circumstances. Because the Proposed Rule will de-emphasize prior reliance of a noncitizen on certain assistance, it may make it easier for noncitizen employees and others who received assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic or under other circumstances in the past to renew their visa to remain in the U.S. This could be helpful to businesses that concerned about the loss of noncitizen workers or service providers who otherwise might be disqualified by the prior need for or receipt of public assistance or unwilling to come or stay in the U.S. because of the disqualification of family members under the public assistance criteria.
The easing of the standard also may impact health care, community, religious, charitable or other organizations concerned that certain populations of noncitizens they service could be denied entry or forced to leave the United States.
Meanwhile, federal, state and local governments, community agencies and others also should assess the program eligibility and cost implications of the Proposed Rule and begin planning accordingly.
To review the Proposed Rule, a summary of the proposed regulation and history of the public charge rule and other details, see here. Persons interested in commenting on the proposed regulation should submit their comments electronically on or before April 25, 2022 following the instructions here.
More Information
For additional information about the requirements or concerns discussed in this article, republication or other related matters, please contact the author, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail, via telephone at (214) 452 -8297 or on LinkedIn.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, Form I-9 and other compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, internal controls, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.
Well-known for her extensive work with health and life sciences, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com including the following:
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
U.S. employers of employees returning to the workplace after working remotely during the COVID-19 emergency should include verifying the physical presence and all other Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) requirements for complying with Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are met by each employee returning to the workplace to minimize the risk of liability arising from failing to physically examine eligibility and identity documentation of employees hired to work remotely without physical examination of their original identity and eligibility documentation based on COVID-19 related limited Form I-9 flexibilities granted by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); upcoming or missed deadlines for reverification of eligibility to work documentation for employees whose eligibility documentation contains an expiration date or both. Employers should use care to ensure that COVID-19 related staffing or other operational disruptions result in any failures to timely reverify eligibility to work for employees with expiring eligibility documents; to examine in the physical presence of the employee the identity and eligibility documents of employees hired to work remotely during the COVID-19 health care emergency within three days of the date the employee resumes working at an employer’s worksite on a regular basis or April 30, 2022.
U.S. law requires that each employer, agricultural recruiter and referrers for a fee who recruits, refers for a fee, or hires an individual for employment in the U.S. (“employer”) verify the employee’s identity and employment authorization by properly completing and retaining the Form I-9 for that employee. In addition to requiring each employee to complete Section 1 of the Form I-9, employers also must require each employee to present original identity and eligibility to work documentation for examination by the employer in the physical presence of the employee before the employer completes and signs Section 2 of the Form I-9. In some instances, employers that previously completed a Form I-9 for an employee subsequently may be required to complete Section 3 (“reverify”) when the employee relief upon documentation with an expiration date to prove eligibility to work by presenting unexpired original eligibility documentation to the employer for examination in the physical presence of the employee before the employer can complete the certifications required by that Section of the Form I-9.
Whether conducting an original employment verification or reverifying the employment eligibility of an employee when eligibility documents expire, the Form I-9 rules normally require the employer to physically examine the document presented by the employee to prove identity and eligibility to work to ensure the documents the employee presented are originals of a document on the Lists of Acceptable Documents or is an acceptable receipt and that the presented document reasonably appears genuine and to relate to the presenting employee. When the documents meet these conditions, during this physical examination, the employer must enter the necessary information to complete the applicable of Section 2 or 3 of the Form I-9 and appropriately date and sign the Form I-9.
Employers hiring employees based on documents that will require reverification usually track the impending expirations and notify the impacted employees at least 90 days before the date is required that they will be required to present a List A or List C document (or acceptable receipt) showing continued employment authorization on the date that their employment authorization or documentation whichever is sooner, expires.
COVID-19 DHS Form I-9 Flexibility Guidance Limited To Qualifying COVID-19 Remote Employees; Set To Expire April 30
On March 20 2020, DHS issued Form I-9 flexibilities guidance in response to precautions implemented by employers and employees related to physical proximity associated with the COVID-19 health care emergency. Under the currently applicable extension of the flexibility guidance published in December, 2021, that flexibility is set to expire on April 30, 2020.
The March 20, 2020 Form I-9 flexibility guidance granted employers temporary flexibility to delay examination of original identity and employment authorization documents in the employee’s physical presence for employees working remotely as a COVID-19 precaution provided that the employer:
Inspected the Section 2 documents remotely over video link, fax or email, etc.;
Obtained, inspected, and retained copies of the documents, within three business days for purposes of completing Section 2;
Physically inspected the documents after normal operations resumed by requiring all employees on boarded using remote verification to report to the employer within three business days for in-person verification of Form I-9 identity and employment eligibility documentation;
Maintained and provided as required written documentation of their remote onboarding and telework policy for each employee and other necessary documentation and other evidence to meet the criteria to qualify for the flexibility; and
E-Verify participants who met the criteria and choose the remote inspection option continue to follow current guidance and create cases for their new hires within three business days from the date of hire.
For purposes of completing the Form I-9 documentation for employees covered by this flexibility, DHS directed employers taking advantage of this flexibility to delay physical inspection to enter “COVID-19” as the reason for the physical inspection delay in the Section 2 when originally completing the employee’s Form I-9 and when the employer physically inspected the documents when normal operations resumed, to add “documents physically examined” with the date of inspection to the Section 2 additional information on the Form I-9, or to section 3 as appropriate. DHS specified that employers could rely upon this COVID-19 related flexibility until the earlier of 60 days from the date of its notice or within 3 business days after the termination of the National Emergency.
On March 31, 2021, DHS updated its March 20, 2020 Form I-9 flexibilities guidance effective April 1, 2021, to limit an employer’s ability to delay inspection in the physical presence of the employee to remote workers. The updated guidance states employers are required to inspect the Form I-9 identity and employment eligibility documentation in person for any employees who physically report to work at a company location on any regular, consistent, or predictable basis. For employees working remotely hired on or after April 1, 2021, however, the March 31, 2021 update specifies the flexibility to delay inspection in the physical presence of the employee applies to employees working work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions until the earlier of the date the remote worker undertakes non-remote employment on a regular, consistent, or predictable basis, or the date DHS terminates Form I-9 flexibility guidance. DHS also stated that the flexibilities do not prevent employers from commencing, in their discretion, the in-person verification of identity and employment eligibility documentation for employees hired on or after March 20, 2020, and presented such documents for remote inspection in reliance on the flexibilities first announced in March 2020.
Since DHS subsequently extended the availability of the Form I-9 flexibility policy through April 30, 2022 because of ongoing precautions related to COVID-19, employers that meet the conditions of the guidance currently may continue to delay in person inspection of the Form I-9 eligibility and identification documents for a remote worker hired after March 31, 2021 until the earlier of the date the employee resumes physically reporting to work at a company location on any regular, consistent or predictable basis; April 30, 2022 or the date normal operations resume. Meanwhile, employers must monitor the DHS and ICE’s Workforce Enforcement announcements about when the extensions end and normal operations resume.
Verify & Strengthen Compliance To Avoid Potentially Costly Fines & Other Liability
Maintaining appropriate Form I-9 verification and documentation compliance is critical to reduce exposure to expensive civil fines and in the case of certain wilful violations, even potential criminal liability.
DHS base penalties for I-9 violations adjust for inflation annually. Under the inflation adjustments implemented in November, 2021. the I-9 violation penalty per Form I-9 are now:
For the first offense, $590-$4,722;
For the second offense, $4,722-$11,803; and
For the third or subsequent offense, $7,082-$23,607.
Appropriate documented compliance and remediation efforts by an employer are taken into account and can significantly mitigate if not eliminate civil and criminal liability assessments for Form I-9 and other immigration law violations Given the potential liabilities of noncompliance and the likely expiration of the COVID-19 flexibility guidance. all employers should include confirmation of continued I-9 compliance to their risk management activities.
As the COVID-19 health care emergency abates and businesses resume more normalized operations, employers that have resumed normal operations as well as employers with workers continuing to work remotely as part of their COVID-19 containment arrangements should ensure the employer has inspected the Form I-9 original identity and eligibility documentation of each employee physically reporting to work on any regular, consistent or predictable basis. In addition, as employees that previously worked remotely in response to the COVID-19 health care emergency resume onsite work, employers also should confirm that the Form I-9 documents not previously inspected in the presence of the employee in reliance on the I-9 flexibility guidance are required to present their original documentation for in person inspection by the employer within three days. Finally, because the COVID-19 health care emergency disrupted the normal operations and staffing of many employers, most employers also will want to audit the expiration dates, if any of any time limited eligibility documents presented by their employees to ensure that timely steps are taken to notify and secure updated eligibility documentation for employees whose employment relies upon those expiring documents.
Along with confirming that I-9 documentation for new hires and noncitizen employees relying upon expiring documentation during the COVID-19 health care emergency, employers also generally shoild reconfirm the adequacy of their overall I-9 policies, practices and documentation. Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b), requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all individuals hired in the United States after November 6, 1986. 8 C.F.R. Section 274a.2 designates the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), as the vehicle for documenting this verification. For current employees, employers are required to maintain for inspection original Form(s) I-9 on paper or as an on-screen version generated by an electronic system that can produce legible and readable paper copies. For former employees, the retention of Form(s) I-9 is required for a period of at least three years from the first day of employment or one year from the date employment ends, whichever is longer.
Employers receiving a NOI or other request for inspection typically will want to contact experienced legal counsel immediately upon receipt to discuss any concerns and review the materials to identify any potential areas of concern and opportunities for improvement or liability mitigation prior to the inspection.Employers that receive a Notice of Inspection (NOI) from DHS can expect to be asked to produce the requested Form(s) I-9 for inspection along with a copy of the employer’s payroll, a list of active and terminated employees, articles of incorporation, business licenses and other supporting documentation. Businesses relying on contractors, subcontractors or leased employees should be prepared to access and provide any documentation regarding those workers available when requested, particularly in light of ongoing worker reclassification and joint employer initiatives by various federal agencies. The time period to produce these documents in the NOI can be short. Typically the NOI offers three or more days before the scheduled inspection. However, legal counsel frequently may work with DHS to arrange for a short extension of the deadline to allow for collection and organization of the requested materials. However, even with such extensions, advance preparation and organization, including collection or negotiation of access to contract labor, contractor, payroll and other relevant records, can be critical.
More Information
For additional information about the requirements or concerns discussed in this article, republication or other related matters, please contact the author, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail, via telephone at (214) 452 -8297 or on LinkedIn.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, Form I-9 and other compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, internal controls, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.
Well-known for her extensive work with health and life sciences, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com including the following:
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
Section 2202 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), enacted on March 27, 2020, provides for special distribution options and rollover rules for retirement plans and IRAs and expands permissible loans from certain retirement plans.
While it anticipates issuing further guidance, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on May 4 provided preliminary guidance in question and answer format titled Coronavirus-related relief for retirement plans and IRAs questions and answers.
More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years legal and operational management work, coaching, public policy and regulatory affairs leadership and advocacy, training and public speaking and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally on an demand, special project and ongoing basis with business, government and community organizations and their leaders, spoken and published extensively on human resources, employee benefits and other workforce and services, tax, health care and health benefits, insurance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other management topics, As a key focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked with public and private employers of all sizes, employee benefit plans, insurance and financial services, health industry and a broad range of public and private domestic and international business, community and government organizations and leaders on pandemic and other health and safety, workforce and performance preparedness, risks and change management, disaster preparedness and response and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life. A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organizations workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and shares insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications and public speaking. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:
The planned shift to demand greater interoperability promises to create new demands for employer-sponsored health plans, health insurers and others involved in the healthcare delivery and payment processes. Health plans and their insurers and sponsors should begin preparing for these new demands, as well as to leverage the new opportunities and manage the new risks they will create.
The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act.
Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave HHS authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:
The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.
These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden..
Current Status
The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. For example:
Despite the individual right to access health information about themselves established by the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients often lack access to their own health information, which hinders their ability to manage their health and shop for medical care at lower prices;
Health care providers often lack access to patient data at the point of care, particularly when multiple health care providers maintain different pieces of data, own different systems, or use health IT solutions purchased from different developers; and
Payers often lack access to clinical data on groups of covered individuals to assess the value of services provided to their customers.
The Report says these limitations create several problems, including:
Patients should be able to easily and securely access their medical data through their smartphones. Currently, patients electronically access their health information through patient portals that prevent them from easily pulling from multiple sources or health care providers. Patient access to their electronic health information also requires repeated use of logins and manual data updates.
For health care providers and payers, interoperable access and exchange of health records is focused on accessing one record at a time.
Payers cannot effectively represent their members if they lack computational visibility into which health care providers offer the highest quality care at the lowest cost. Without the capability to access multiple records across a population of patients, health care providers and payers will not benefit from the value of using modern computing solutions—such as machine learning and artificial intelligence—to inform care decisions and identify trends.
Payers and employer group health plans which purchase health care have little information on health outcomes. Often, health care providers and payers negotiate contracts based on the health care provider’s reputation rather than on the quality of care that health care provider offers to patients. Health care providers should instead compete based on the entire scope of the quality and value of care they provide, not on how exclusively they can craft their networks. Outcome data will allow payers to apply machine learning and artificial intelligence to have better insight into the value of the care they purchase.
Current Barriers
According to the Report, HHS heard from stakeholders over the past year that barriers to interoperable access to health information remain, including technical, financial, trust, and business practice barriers. These barriers impede the movement of health information to where it is needed across the care continuum. In addition, burden arising from quality reporting, documentation, administrative, and billing requirements that prescribe how health IT systems are designed also hamper the innovative usability of health IT.
Current and Upcoming Actions
The Report states HHS has many efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans.
ONC also reports Federal agencies, states, and industry have taken steps to address technical, trust, and financial challenges to interoperable health information access, exchange, and use for patients, health care providers, and payers (including insurers). HHS aims to build on these successes through the ONC Health IT Certification Program, HHS rulemaking, health IT innovation projects, and health IT coordination.
In accordance with the Cures Act, HHS is actively leading and coordinating a number of key programs and projects. These include continued work to deter and penalize poor business practices and that HHS conducted multiple outreach efforts to engage the clinical community and health IT stakeholders to better understand these barriers, challenges, and health care provider burden.
Recommendations
The Report makes the following overarching recommendations for future actions HHS plans to support through its policies and that the health IT community as a whole can take to accelerate progress:
Focus on improving interoperability and upgrading technical capabilities of health IT, so patients can securely access, aggregate, and move their health information using their smartphones (or other devices) and health care providers can easily send, receive, and analyze patient data.
Increase transparency in data sharing practices and strengthen technical capabilities of health IT so payers can access population-level clinical data to promote economic transparency and operational efficiency to lower the cost of care and administrative costs.
Prioritize improving health IT and reducing documentation burden, time inefficiencies, and hassle for health care providers, so they can focus on their patients rather than their computers.
The Report also says interoperable access underpins HHS’s efforts to pursue a health care system where data are available when and where needed.
ONC intends to particularly focus on promoting open APIs. Open APIs are technology that allow one software program to access the services provided by another software program and can improve access and exchange of health information. ONC says APIs can:
Support patients’ ability to have more access to information electronically through, for example, smartphones and mobile applications. HHS applauds the emergence of patient-facing applications that allow patients to access, aggregate, and act on their health information; and
Allow payers to receive necessary and appropriate information on a group of members without having to access one record at a time.
Increase institutional accountability, support value- based care models, and lead to competitive medical care pricing that benefits patients.
The Report claims patients, health care providers, and payers with appropriate access to health information can use modern computing solutions to generate value from the data. Improved interoperability can strengthen market competition, result in greater quality, safety, and value for the healthcare system, and enable patients, health care providers, and payers to experience the benefits of health IT.
Prepare For Enhanced Operability Requirements
ONC’s plan to achieve greater interoperability presents new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. Among other things, participants in the healthcare system and their suppliers will need to prepare to comply with new expectations and mandates for interoperability. Meeting these demands will require financial expenditures as well as present technological challenges.The increased availability and accessto electronica medical records and information resulting from these changes also a can be expected to drive new challenges and demands. Among other things, businesses relying on control of health information or records to influence or control patience, reimbursement, or other business value need to reevaluate and adjust their business models accordingly.
Improve accessibility and interoperability also is likely to create new expectations and demands by patients, payers, other providers and perhaps most significantly for providers and payers, regulators. Participants in the system will need to understand these applications and prepare to both defend their business performance as well as their compliance taking into account these new demands.
Amid all of this, of course, providers, pears, and their business associates can anticipate continued if not enhanced demands for enhanced data security and privacy protections and accompanying enforcement of these standards.
As ONC move forward on its plans to enhance interoperability, all concerned stakeholders will want to monitor developments and provide thoughtful and timely input. The time to get started is now. ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Those interested in providing input should make sure their comments are submitted by the applicable deadlines next month.
ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Read the full Report here and share your input by the specified deadlines.
About the Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of managed care and other health industry, health and other benefit and insurance, workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.
Scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues.
Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.
A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.
Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, and change management; workforce and operations management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of their operations.
Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.
Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.
A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about contracting, credentialing and quality assurance, compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Author of works on Payer and Provider Contracting and many other managed care concerns, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
January 8, 2018 is the deadline to comment on the Office of Child Care (OCC) FY 2019–2021 Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan Preprint including plans to grant waivers for childcare background checks.
The Preprint introduces the process and criteria for requesting additional time to complete background check requirements for interstate check components and for addressing the backlog of completing background checks for existing providers.
According to the Request for Comments, OCC is committed to granting additional waivers of up to 2 years, in 1-year increments (i.e., potentially through September 30, 2020), for background check requirements only in recognition of the significant challenges to implementing the CCDF background check requirements, . To receive these time-limited waivers, states and territories will have to meet milestones to ensure that they have requirements in place for a particular portion of the components and that they are conducting checks for new staff on those components (i.e., FBI fingerprint checks and the three in-state checks). The details on the milestone prerequisite and how to apply for the waiver are included in section 5.4 of the FY 2019–2021 CCDF Plan.
OCC has requested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) grant approval under procedures for emergency processing of the FY 2019–2021 CCDF State/Territory Plan Preprint to ensure that states and territories have sufficient time to complete the OMB-approved Plan Preprint by July 1, 2018. The emergency clearance provides for a single 30-day comment period. Both the Federal Register announcement and a copy of the draft FY 2019–2021 CCDF Plan Preprint are posted on the OCC website. Accordingly, Comments are due no later than January 8, 2018,
About The Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.
Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.
Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com such as the following:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
This month’s annual October Stop Bullying Month observances are a great time for employers to deter sexual, racial, religious, national Origin, disability discrimination and harassment, retaliation and other illegal or otherwise counterproductive bullying in their workplaces.
Aside from obvious legal exposures that often attend from many versions of workplaces bullying, unfair or heavy handed tactics of workplace bullies often pervasively disrupt workplace productivity and operations by undermining performance, feedback, initiative, employee retention and a host of other ways.
Seize the opportunity to boost your organization’s legal and operational exposures non discrimination, anti-harassment, and other workplace bullying policies by leveraging the visibility and resources of this month’s anti-bullying activities.
Checkout StopBullying.gov for more information and free resources.
About The Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.
Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.
Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com such as the following:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
President Trump today (October 12, 2017) issued the following that he promised to be the first in a series of executive orders and other administrative actions that his administration will roll out to provide Obamacare relief for consumers, employers and others by promoting healthcare choice and competition given the continued difficulty by the Republican-led Congress to pass legislation repealing or replacing the health care law.
On the heels of his announcement of the Executive Order, President Trump moved forward on his promise to take other action on Obamacare by announcing that the Administration will not continue funding for individual subsidies that currently are continued under an Obama Administration action in the absence of Congressional action funding those subsidies.
Concerned parties should monitor and inform themselves about proposed changes in the Executive Order and other actions as they are proposed and develop, and provide timely comments and other input to help influence the shape and content of any changes proposed or adopted in response to the Executive Order. Solutions Law Press, Inc. will be monitoring developments. Stay tuned for updates.
Language of Executive Order
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy.
(a) It shall be the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), however, has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using http://www.healthcare.gov in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013. The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017.
(b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).
(i) Large employers often are able to obtain better terms on health insurance for their employees than small employers because of their larger pools of insurable individuals across which they can spread risk and administrative costs. Expanding access to AHPs can help small businesses overcome this competitive disadvantage by allowing them to group together to self-insure or purchase large group health insurance. Expanding access to AHPs will also allow more small businesses to avoid many of the PPACA’s costly requirements. Expanding access to AHPs would provide more affordable health insurance options to many Americans, including hourly wage earners, farmers, and the employees of small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel economic growth.
(ii) STLDI is exempt from the onerous and expensive insurance mandates and regulations included in title I of the PPACA. This can make it an appealing and affordable alternative to government-run exchanges for many people without coverage available to them through their workplaces. The previous administration took steps to restrict access to this market by reducing the allowable coverage period from less than 12 months to less than 3 months and by preventing any extensions selected by the policyholder beyond 3 months of total coverage.
(iii) HRAs are tax-advantaged, account-based arrangements that employers can establish for employees to give employees more flexibility and choices regarding their healthcare. Expanding the flexibility and use of HRAs would provide many Americans, including employees who work at small businesses, with more options for financing their healthcare.
(c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competition in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should:
(i) expand the availability of and access to alternatives to expensive, mandate-laden PPACA insurance, including AHPs, STLDI, and HRAs;
(ii) re-inject competition into healthcare markets by lowering barriers to entry, limiting excessive consolidation, and preventing abuses of market power; and
(iii) improve access to and the quality of information that Americans need to make informed healthcare decisions, including data about healthcare prices and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, providers, or payers.
Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans.
Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expanding the conditions that satisfy the commonality‑of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an “employer” under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry.
Sec. 3. Expanded Availability of Short-Term, Limited‑Duration Insurance.
Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand the availability of STLDI. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretaries should consider allowing such insurance to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer.
Sec. 4. Expanded Availability and Permitted Use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements.
Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, to increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.
Sec. 5. Public Comment.
The Secretaries shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under sections 2 through 4 of this order.
Within 180 days of the date of this order, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor and the Federal Trade Commission, shall provide a report to the President that:
(a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and
(b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.
Sec. 7. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 12, 2017
Implications & Actions
The impact of this and other Executive Orders and other Presidential actions depend upon what actions, if any, the agencies determine they are allowed by law to take and how those changes are implemented. Concerned persons and organizations should begin preparing input to the agencies and monitoring and commenting on proposals and other guidance to help shape the outcome.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. is preparing initial analysis of this Executive Order and will be closely monitoring and updating this analysis. Follow up to learn more and stay abreast of new developments.
About The Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.
Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Author of numerous works on privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer‘s experience includes involvement in cyber security and other data privacy and security matters for more than 20 years.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.
Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com such as the following:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
As businesses continue to struggle to comply with the growing plethora of federal and state laws mandating data security, the identity theft and cyber security epidemic keeps growing.
As human resources and other business leaders work to guard their own data and respond to employee demands for assistance in responding to breaches of their personal financial and other data, this weeks’ announcement that embattled credit monitoring giant Equifax has been awarded the exclusive contract to provide taxpayer identification and fraud prevention services to the Internal Revenue Service has many questioning whether these investments are futile.
The IRS’ announcement comes despite the September 7, 2017 announcement by Equifax of a data breach of its records impacting sensitive personal information of millions of consumers including:
The names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in some instances, driver’s license numbers of an estimated 143 million U.S. consumers;
Credit card numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers,
Certain dispute documents with personal identifying information for approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers,and
Personal information for certain U.K. and Canadian consumers.
The huge breach already was creating many headaches for many businesses and their human resources departments before the IRS announced the award of the contract to Equifax. Due to the massive size of the breach, mist companies have been required to respond to concerns of workers impacted directly by the breach as well as requests of employees and identity theft protection companies that the business consider offering cybersecurity protection for employees or customers.
Beyond helping their workforce understand and cope with the news, many businesses and employee benefit plans also face the added headache of needing to investigate and respond to concerns about their own potential responsibilities to provide breach notification or take other actions. This added headache arises due to their or their plans’ use of Equifax or vendors utilizing Equifax to run employee or vendor background checks or carry out internal employee or employee benefit plan, customer or other business activities. These involvements often give rise to duties to conduct investigations and potentially provide notification or other responses to employees, applicants, benefit plan members, contractors or customers whose data may have been impacted under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Fiduciary Responsibility rules or various other federal and state laws and regulations, vendor contracts or their own data privacy or security policies.
When notification is recommended or required, human resources and other business leaders also have to consider if modifications should be considered to standard protocols recommended to data breach victims. Notification and registration as an identity theft victim with Equifax long has been a standard part of the federal and state government recommended protocol for recommended to consumers impacted by identity theft or other data breaches. See,e.g., IRS Taxpayer Guide To Identity Theft. Although government agencies as of yet have not changed this recommendation to remove Equifax reporting, many consumers and others view reporting to Equifax as akin to the fox watching the hen house. Consequently, employers and other parties helping consumers respond to the breach often receive push back or questions from consumers about the appropriateness and security reporting to Equifax in light of its breach.
Beyond evaluating and handling their own legal responsibilities to investigate and deal with any breach impacting their data, employers and other business leaders also likely are or should consider what claims against Equifax, other vendors and business partners involved with Equifax and their own liability insurers are available and warranted to help cover the costs and potential liabilities for the business arising from the breach and it’s fall out.
As employers and other businesses work through these issues, They should keep in mind that the fallout is likely to continue for years and be further complicated by past and subsequent breaches impacting other governmental and private organizations. Human resources, employee benefits and other businesses and their leaders can expect to experience challenges dealing with fraudulent uses of misappropriated information as well as demands that they tighten up their background check, data security and usage and other practices and documentation to mitigate risks from the compromised data.
Human resources, employee benefits and other business leaders need to secure the assistance of counsel experienced in guiding their organizations through these and other challenges.
About The Author
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for management work, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.
Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Author of numerous works on privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer‘s experience includes involvement in cyber security and other data privacy and security matters for more than 20 years.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.
Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com such as the following:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
“2017 Federal Group Health Plan Mental Health Rules Update”
Solutions Law Press, Inc™ Health Plan Update WebEx Briefing
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
10:30 A.M.-11:30 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-12:30 P.M. Central
EXPANDING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS & ENFORCEMENT SPELL TROUBLE FOR HEALTH PLANS AND THEIR SPONSORING EMPLOYERS.
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ invites employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrative service providers, plan brokers and consultants are invited learn critical information about their expanding risks and responsibilities arising from existing and proposed changes to rules and enforcement of federal group health plan mental health and substance abuse (MH/SUB) coverage and privacy rules under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), as supplemented by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) and the Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits recognized as among the “Best Lawyers” in employee benefits for her health and other benefit knowledge, experience, policy advocacy and thought leadership. Register here now!
Tightening Health Plan Mental Health & Substance Abuse Rules & Enforcement Make Group Health Plan Compliance Critical
New and proposed guidance jointly published June 16, 2017 by the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health & Human Services (HHS) and Treasury is the latest in a series of regulatory and enforcement developments over the past year alerting group health plans and their employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrative services providers, plan brokers and consultants involved in health plan design, funding, or administration to get serious about their group health plans’ compliance with the MHPAEA federal group health plan mental health and substance abuse coverage and benefit requirements, as supplemented by the ACA and the Cures Act without running afoul of the Privacy Rules of HIPAA.
Building upon federal group health plan mental health parity mandates originally implemented under the Mental Health Parity Act, the MHPAEA generally requires that any financial requirements or treatment limitations group health plans impose on mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits not be restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical and surgical benefits. MHPAEA also imposes several disclosure requirements on group health plans and health insurance issuers. Not satisfied with the MHPAEA coverage and disclosure protections, however, Congress subsequently broadened federal MH/SUD benefit rights under group health plans through the enactment of the ACA and the Cures Act. Congress also has imposed special requirements and protections for mental health treatment records adds additional responsibilities for group health plans and their service providers when dealing with information and records in connection with the administration of MH/SUD benefits.
After a long period of lax oversight and enforcement of these federal group health plan mental health rules, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) since October, 2016 have begun both tightening the rules and acting to increase oversight and enforcement. The Departments have issued a series of joint guidance clarifying and broadening their interpretations of these MH/SUD benefit and disclosure mandates while simultaneously taking steps to increase awareness and enforcement of these rights. As part of these ongoing efforts, Departments’ on June 16, 2017 expanded this guidance with their publication of new Mental Health Parity Implementation FAQs Part 38 discussing their joint interpretation of the broadening effect of the enactment of the ACA and the Cure Act on these plan requirements. Concurrently, the Departments signaled their intention to add additional responsibilities for group health plans and insurers by publishing along with FAQ Part 38 a Draft MHPAEA Disclosure Template and request for comments. This latest guidance package reaffirms that the Departments are continuing efforts to increase oversight of and enforcement of MH/SUD compliance against group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, and their administrative and other service providers. In the face of these developments and the reported initiation of enforcement actions by the Departments, the group health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, and their administrative and other service providers should move quickly to understand and update their plans and practices to comply with these recent developments while bracing for the likely need to deal with further expanded disclosure and other additional responsibilities under the MHPAEA jointly proposed by the Departments on June 16, 2017.
Beyond fulfilling these expanding MHPAEA responsibilities, health plan fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and sponsors also must ensure their health plan and its business associates comply with special rules concerning the protection, use and disclosure of mental health treatment records and information that may impact certain mental health treatment and other records received, used, retained or disclosed in the course of administering mental health, substance abuse or other provisions of their group health plans under the HIPAA Privacy Rules. Keeping in mind that HHS audit and enforcement of compliance by health plans and other HIPAA covered entities with HIPAA’s medical privacy and data security rules, health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrative and other service providers also should take the opportunity to verify that their plans and practices comply with special HIPAA rules impacting authorizations and other dealings with certain mental health and substance abuse health information and records and other HIPAA medical privacy and security requirements.
Given these developments, group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrator must take steps to verify and maintain compliance with these federal MH/SUD requirements. Ensuring proper compliance with these federal rules is particularly important to avoid triggering the substantial liability that health plans, their employer and other sponsors, insurers, and administrators can incur if their health plan violates these mandates. Obviously, plans and their sponsors, insurers and fiduciaries can expect to pay additional plan expenses necessary to pay wrongfully denied benefits and other expenditures these plan or its fiduciaries expend to investigate, defend and resolve claims or compliance audits, investigations, litigation or actions brought by the Departments, state insurance regulators with respect to state governments or insurers, or private litigation by participants or beneficiaries. Many employer or other plan sponsors may be unaware that these violations also generally expose employers and other health plan sponsors to liability to self identify, self-report on Internal Revenue Service Form 8928 and self-pay and excise tax of up to $100 per participant per day per uncorrected violation by the due date for filing of their annual corporate tax return.
With oversight and enforcement already rising and the Departments proposing to expand further both disclosure duties and enforcement, group health plans, their employer and other sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators clearly need to take prompt action to verify their existing health plan provisions and administrative practices are up-to-date and administered to withstand challenge from the Departments, participants, beneficiaries, health care providers and others. Consequently, employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrative services providers, plan brokers and consultants involved in health plan design, funding, or administration should act quickly to verify their plan terms and practices are updated to comply with existing rules and share their input in response to the Departments June 16, 2017 requests for comments.
ABOUT CYNTHIA MARCOTTE STAMER
Recognized as “Legal Leader™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” and an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble, singled out as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits by D Magazine; Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on health coverage and health care, health plan and employee benefits, workforce and related regulatory and other compliance, performance management, risk management, product and process development, public policy, operations and other concerns.
Throughout her legal and consulting career, Ms. Stamer has drawn recognition for combining extensive knowledge and experience with her talents as an insightful innovator and problem solver when advising, representing and defending employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, insurers, electronic and other technology, plan administrators and other service providers, governments and others about health coverage, benefit program design, funding, documentation, administration, data security and use, contracting, plan, public and regulatory reforms and enforcement, and other risk management and operations matters as well as for her work and thought leadership on a broad range of other health, employee benefits, human resources and other workforce, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters. Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Past Group Chair, current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Welfare Committee Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.SolutionsLawPress.com.
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 here. For important information concerning this communication, see here.
NOTICE: Any party accessing or using any content obtained from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ acknowledges and agrees that any and all programs, publications, statements and materials presented or published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and any statements or other contents made or contained therein are for general informational and educational purposes only. They are generic in nature and not tailored or intended to be relied upon by any person, business, entity or other party for purposes for determining the legal, financial or other appropriateness, defensibility, suitability, outcome or consequences of any strategy, action, course of action, or any other facts, circumstances, event or conduct. Users of these resources are responsible at all times for independently evluating the suitability of any content, materials, tools or other materials or information accessed from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc. directly or indirectly.
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and its authors and contributors do not represent or warrant in any form or manner, and expressly disclaim and deny the appropriateness of the use or reliance of any person or entity on any content, tools or resources accessed or obtained from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ for any general or particular use or purpose by any party under any circumstances.
Likewise, they do not establish an attorney-client relationship or other fiduciary, contractual or other relationship between Solutions Law Press, Inc. and/or any of its authors or contributors and any other party. They are not, and do not serve as a substitute for legal, accounting, tax or other advice. They don’t create or otherwise give rise to any duty, obligation, responsibility on behalf of Solutions Law Press, Inc™ or any provider or offeree of content, tools or services to any party.
Parties accessing or using any of Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The publisher and the author expressly disclaim all liability for this content and any responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Employers, insurers and other health plan sponsors or issuers (health plans), health care providers, healthcare clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates should reevaluate the adequacy of their practices and procedures for the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices in light of the $2.75 million penalty and other schooling the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) just gave the University of Mississippi (UM) Medical Center (UMMC) documented in a July 7, 2016 Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) resolving OCR charges of multiple violations of the privacy, security and breach notification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) OCR says it uncovered while investigating UMMC’s breach notification report to OCR of the loss a laptop containing 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.
UMMC Report of Missing Laptop Leads To Multiple Charges & Resolution Agreement
Mississippi’s sole public academic health science center, UMMC provides patient care in four specialized hospitals on the Jackson campus and at clinics throughout Jackson and the State as well as conducts medical education and research functions. Its designated health care component, UMMC, includes University Hospital, the site of the breach in this case, located on the main UMMC campus in Jackson.
The settlement agreed to by UMMC stems from charges resulting from an OCR investigation of UMMC triggered by a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) affecting approximately 10,000 individuals.
Like many prior resolution agreements previously announced by OCR, UMMC’s HIPAA woes came to light after a laptop went missing. OCR learned of the breach and opened its investigation in response to a March 21, 2013 notification UMMC filed with OCR. UMMC made the breach notification to comply with HIPAA’s Breach Notification Rule requirement that health care providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) timely notify affected individuals, OCR and others of breaches of unsecured ePHI.
UMMC’s breach notification disclosed that UMMC’s privacy officer had discovered a password-protected laptop containing ePHI of thousands of UMMC patients missing from UMMC’s Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). UMMC additionally reported that based on its investigation, UMMC believed that the missing laptop likely was stolen by a visitor to the MICU who had inquired about borrowing one of the laptops.
After discovering the loss, UMMC disclosed the breach to local media and on its website and notified OCR of the breach but apparently did not individually notify the subjects of the missing ePHI.
In keeping with its announced policy of investigating all breach reports impacting 500 or more individuals, OCR opened an investigation into UMMC’s breach report. Based on this investigation, OCR concluded that while the laptop apparently was password protected, UMMC had breached the Security Rules because ePHI stored on a UMMC network drive was vulnerable to unauthorized access via UMMC’s wireless network because users could use a generic username and password to access an active directory containing 67,000 files including 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.
While OCR’s investigation confirmed that UMMC had implemented policies and procedures pursuant to the HIPAA Rules, OCR’s additionally found that the theft of the laptop that prompted UMMC’s breach report resulted from broad deficiencies in UMMC’s implementation and administration of these policies and its practices.
Based on these findings, OCR charged UMMC with the following HIPAA violations:
From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, through the settlement date, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(i) by failing to implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations, including conducting an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of the ePHI it holds, and implementing security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level;
From January 19, 2013, until March 1, 2014, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.310(c) by failing to implement physical safeguards for all workstations that access ePHI to restrict access to authorized users;
From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, to March 14, 2013, UM violated 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 (a)(2)(i) by failing to assign a unique user name and/or number for identifying and tracking user identity in information systems containing ePHI including, for example, allowing workforce members to access ePHI on a shared department network drive through a generic account, preventing UMMC from tracking which specific users were accessing ePHI; and
While UMMC provided notification on UMMC’s website and in local media outlets following the discovery of the reported breach of unsecured ePHI,, UMMC violated the Breach Notification Rule by failing to notify each individual whose unsecured ePHI was reasonably believed to have been accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed as a result of the breach.
Finally, OCR determined that UMMC was aware of risks and vulnerabilities to its systems as far back as April 2005, yet took no significant risk management activity until after the breach, due largely to organizational deficiencies and insufficient institutional oversight.
To resolve these charges, UMMC agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR $2.75 million and implement a comprehensive compliance plan which among other things, requires UMMC to conduct a sweeping review and correct its HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification policies and their implementation and administration to comply with HIPAA as well as implement and administer detailed management and OCR oversight and reporting processes over the implementation and administration of these procedures.
Lessons For Other Covered Entities From UMMC Resolution Agreement
The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement contains several key lessons for other covered entities and their business associates, which OCR’s July 21, 2016 announcement warns other covered entities and business associates to heed..
Certainly, the $2.75 million settlement amount reaffirms that covered entities and their business associates risk substantial liability for failing to properly assess and protect the security of ePHI in accordance with HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rule.
Furthermore, the charges and Resolution Agreement also adds a new twist to OCR’s now well established to stiffly sanction covered entities and their business associates that fail appropriately assess and address risks to the security of their ePHI on or accessible from laptops or other mobile devices. Through previous resolution agreements and guidance, OCR has made clear that it interprets the HIPAA Security Rule as generally requiring that covered entities and business associates encrypt all laptops or other mobile devices containing ePHI. The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement makes clear that the responsibility to protect ePHI on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices does not end with encryption. Rather, the Resolution Agreement makes clear that covered entities and their business associates also must take appropriate, well-documented steps to monitor, assess, identify, and timely and effectively address other potential risks to the security of the ePHI.
The Resolution Agreement makes clear that these additional responsibilities include, but are not necessarily limited to ensuring that proper safeguards are implemented and enforced to secure access not only to the ePHI contained on the laptop as well as other data bases and systems containing ePHI accessible through the laptop. In this respect, the Resolution Agreement particularly highlights the need for covered entities and their business associates to assess risks and take appropriate steps:
To safeguard the physical security of laptops and other mobile devices;
To prevent the use of generic or other unsecure passwords to access ePHI on or accessible through the laptop or other mobile device;
To establish and administer appropriate, well-documented processes for assessing and addressing the adequacy of safeguards for and potential threats to the security of ePHI both initially and on an ongoing basis in a manner that meaningfully assesses the actual risks and effectiveness of safeguards against these risks, including those resulting from nonadherence to required safeguards and practices such as the sharing of passwords, changing systems or circumstances, and other developments that potentially threaten the adequacy of ePHI security.
Furthermore, OCR’s July 21, 2016 press release concerning the Resolution Agreement also sends a clear message to all covered entities and business associates that OCR views HIPAA as requiring organizations not only to adopt written policies and procedures that comply on paper or in theory with HIPAA, but also to take steps to monitor and maintain the effectiveness of their safeguard by continuously assessing and monitoring their HIPAA risks and acting as necessary to ensure that required safeguards of protected health information and ePHI and other HIPAA requirements are effectively implemented and administered in operation as well as form.
In OCR’s Press Release announcing the Resolution Agreement, OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. Stated, “We at OCR remain particularly concerned with unaddressed risks that may lead to impermissible access to ePHI.” She also warned “In addition to identifying risks and vulnerabilities to their ePHI, entities must also implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to address them within an appropriate time frame.”
Additionally, the Resolution Agreement also illustrates need for covered entities and business associates to timely provide all individual and other notifications and otherwise fully comply with all requirements of the Breach Notification Rules.
Since the risk of a breach is ever-present even for Covered Entities and business associates exercising the highest degree of care to safeguard PHI and maintain compliance with HIPAA, Covered Entities and business associates are wise to take steps to position themselves to be able to demonstrate the adequacy of both their written policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation and enforcement including ongoing documented practices for assessing, monitoring and addressing security risks and other compliance concerns as well as prepare to comply with the breach notification requirements in the event they experience their own breach of unsecured ePHI.
About The Author
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.
Ms. Stamer’s health industry experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.
Ms. Stamer also is known for her experience in HIPAA and other privacy and data security and breach concerns. The scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.
A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.
You can get more information about her health industry experience here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns.
If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates like the following:
Go hereto register to receive other Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates and announcements about other upcoming briefings, training or other programs, products, services, and activities or to learn more about Solutions Law Press, Inc., its publications, programs and training, PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment community service and education projects, event management and other resources and services.
For important information concerning this communication see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.
Health Plans, Sponsors & Business Associates Should Verify Plan’s HIPAA Compliance
Employers and other health plan sponsors and the health plan fiduciaries and business associates providing services involving dealings on behalf of the plan with protected health information just received another reminder to confirm and be prepared to prove all required business associate agreements are in place and that the health plans otherwise properly are administering all policies, practices, safeguards and procedures for handling, using and disclosing electronic and other protected health information from the April 20, 2016 Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announcement of its latest resolution agreement settling Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rule charges OCR made against a HIPAA-covered entity for violating HIPAA’s business associate agreement rules.
OCR Charges Brought For Business Associate Agreement Violations
HIPAA’s Privacy Rules generally apply to “covered entities,” which under HIPAA are health plans and insurers, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and “business associates,” which are individuals or entities that perform services that aid the Covered Entity to perform its duties as a Covered Entity.
The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) with Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A. of North Carolina (Raleigh Orthopaedic) announced by OCR on April 20th requires Raleigh Orthopaedic to pay $750,000 to settle charges OCR it violated the Privacy Rule by handing over protected health information of approximately 17,300 patients to a potential business partner without first executing a business associate agreement.
Raleigh Orthopaedic is a provider group practice that operates clinics and a surgery center in the Raleigh, North Carolina area. OCR initiated its investigation of Raleigh Orthopaedic after receiving a breach report on April 30, 2013. OCR’s investigation indicated that Raleigh Orthopaedic violated the Privacy Rules by releasing the x-ray films and related protected health information of 17,300 patients to an entity that promised to transfer the images to electronic media in exchange for harvesting the silver from the x-ray films. Raleigh Orthopaedic failed to execute a business associate agreement with this entity before turning over the x-rays and PHI.
OCR says this sharing of the x-ray files and other protected health information by Raleigh Orthopaedic violated the Privacy Rules.
Specifically, the Privacy Rules prohibit Covered Entities and their business associates from using, accessing and disclosing protected health information except as specifically permitted in the Privacy Rules. As part of these rules, the “Business Associate” requirements of the Privacy Rule prohibit Covered Entities from disclosing or allowing business associates to use, and business associates from receiving or using protected health information unless the parties first enter into a written business associate agreement that complies with the requirements of the Privacy Rules.
The Resolution Agreement settles OCR charges that Raleigh Orthopaedic violated this Business Associate Agreement requirement by sharing the x-rays and other protected health information with the service provider without first entering a business associate agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, Raleigh Orthopaedic must pay a $750,000 payment, as well as revise its policies and procedures to: establish a process for assessing whether entities are business associates; designate a responsible individual to ensure business associate agreements are in place prior to disclosing PHI to a business associate; create a standard template business associate agreement; establish a standard process for maintaining documentation of a business associate agreements for at least six (6) years beyond the date of termination of a business associate relationship; and limit disclosures of PHI to any business associate to the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the Covered Entity hires the business associate.
Although the Resolution Agreement only addresses charges OCR brought against the Covered Entity, Raleigh Orthopaedic, business associates need to keep in mind that both Covered Entities and business associates now are responsible for ensuring compliance with the business associate agreement requirements of the Privacy Rules since the Stimulus Bill amended HIPAA to make most provisions of the Privacy Rule directly applicable to business associates as well as Covered Entities.
Take Aways For Covered Entities & Their Business Associates
OCR’s announcement of the Resolution Agreement includes a strong message for other Covered Entities and business associates of the importance of taking seriously their responsibility under the Privacy Rule to ensure that the business associate agreement requirements of the Privacy Rule are met before business associates are allowed to receive, access or use protected health information. The announcement quotes Jocelyn Samuels, Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) as stating. “It is critical for entities to know to whom they are handing PHI and to obtain assurances that the information will be protected.” and “HIPAA’s obligation on covered entities to obtain business associate agreements is more than a mere check-the-box paperwork exercise.”
In light of the Business Associate Rule and Director Samuels’ comments, Covered Entities and business associates alike should review the adequacy of their documentation, policies and practices regarding dealings with service providers who are or could collect, receive or use electronic or other protected health information to propose or perform services in the capacity as a business associate. Certainly both Covered Entities and business associates to ensure that they possess and are able to produce if needed signed business associate agreements for each current business associate agreement as well as that appropriate policies, practices and procedures are in place to ensure that all required business associate agreements are implemented before any disclosure or use of protected health information to the business associate in the future. As part of these activities, both Covered Entities and business associates also should ensure their policies and practices appropriately provide for the retention of signed copies of all business associate agreements and other records, and the implementation of all other processes and procedures required to position the entity to be able to demonstrate it not only had policies requiring compliance, but appropriately implemented and administered those policies in accordance with the Privacy Rule.
When conducting this review, Covered Entities and business associates also generally should consider the advisability of also reviewing their business associate agreements and the adequacy of these arrangements in light of any other contractual confidentiality and or contractual rights and commitments, regulatory requirements and other operational and risk management concerns that impact or interrelate with the relationship between the business associate and the Covered Entity. It is important to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to evaluate and properly integrate the confidentiality and other commitments that the Privacy Rules mandate a business associate agreement include with audit, performance assessment, and other data access or disclosure, trade secrets, confidentiality, performance standards and guarantees, indemnity and other contractual obligations of other agreements that could impact or be impacted by the business associate agreements. Steps also should be taken to incorporate appropriate processes and procedures for ensuring that the Covered Entity and members of its workforce understand and consistently administer and document their use of appropriate processes to ensure that the business associate agreement and other requirements of the Privacy Rules are fulfilled. In the case of employer sponsored plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, for instance, the selection and proper oversight of business associates and the management of plan data both are subject to the fiduciary responsibility rules of ERISA. Meanwhile, insurers, business associates and other plan vendors also generally should anticipate that beyond HIPAA, they also may be subject to data security, privacy and other mandates and exposures under state HIPAA-like rules for protected health information, as well as other obligations under insurance, data security, identity theft, breach, privacy and other state laws.
The process of evaluating the adequacy of current arrangement and considering the advisability of changes to tighten existing practices in many cases will result in the discovery and discussion of potentially sensitive information about the adequacy of current or past compliance with the Privacy Rules or other matters. For example, it is possible that in the course of review, parties may be unable to locate a signed business associate agreement governing a relationship that the Privacy Rules require be subject to a business associate agreement or in the course of review, information indicating breaches of protected health information or other Privacy Rule violations may have occurred. For this reason, most Covered Entities and their business associates will want to consider arranging for this review and analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege by or under the direction of qualified legal counsel with HIPAA experience that has entered into a business associate agreement with the Covered Entity or business associate.
About The Author
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a noted Texas-based management lawyer and consultant, author, lecturer and policy advocate, recognized as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Health Care” by D Magazine who works, writes and speaks extensively about HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns.
Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.
Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well-known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.
Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised these and other clients about health care, health plan, financial information, trade secret, privacy and other related compliance, data breach response and remediation and related compliance, risk management and related concerns. In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others.
Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.
Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.
Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns. She will share updates on HIPAA and other health care and data security concerns when returns to speak and chair at the 4th Annual Healthcare Privacy and Security Forum scheduled on May 20, 2016 in Los Angeles.
Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by email here or by telephone at (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:
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.
Employers sponsoring health plans and members of their management named as plan fiduciaries or otherwise having input or oversight over the health plan should verify their company’s group health plan meets the out-of-pocket maximum rules of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) § 1302(c)(1) as well as a long list of other federal health benefit rules to minimize the risk that violations will obligate the sponsoring employer to self-assess, self-report on IRS Form 8928, and pay a $100 per day per violation excise tax penalty and while expose the plan and its fiduciaries to fiduciary or other liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ACA). Consequently, sponsoring employers and their management generally will want to ensure that their plan documents are properly updated to comply with the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal requirements, to require contractual commitments to administer the health plan in compliance with and to report, correct, and indemnify for violations of these requirements in vendor contracts with their health plan insurers, administrators and other vendors, and conduct documented audits to verify the health plan’s operational compliance with these requirements as interpreted by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in form and operation.
Employers, Insurers & Plan Fiduciaries Face Big Risks From Out-Of-Pocket Limit & Other Federal Health Plan Rule Violations
As amended by ACA, health plan violations of ACA and various other federal health plan mandates carry big risks for health plans, their sponsoring employers, and representatives of sponsoring employers, insurers and third party administrators responsible as fiduciaries for administering a group health plan in accordance with these federal rules. As amended by ACA, federal law imposes significant penalties against plans, their fiduciaries and even the sponsoring employer if the group health plan violates the ACA out-of-pocket limit or a long list of other ACA and other federal group health rules. Group health plans can face lawsuits from covered persons, their health care providers as assignees or the DOL, to enforce rights to benefits, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. Beyond benefit litigation, the employer or representatives of the sponsoring employer, if any, named or acting as fiduciaries, insurer or third party service providers named or acting as fiduciaries, also could face fiduciary lawsuits seeking damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs of court, for failing to prudently administer the plan in accordance with its terms and the law brought by covered persons or their beneficiaries or the DOL as well as fiduciary breach penalties if the fiduciary breach action is brought by the DOL. If the plan fails to comply with claims and appeals procedures or other ERISA notification requirements, parties named or functioning as the plan administrator for this purpose also could face penalties of up to $125 per violation per day in the case of enforcement actions brought by participants and beneficiaries or $1025 per violation per day in the case of actions brought by the DOL, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement.
Except in rare circumstances where the sponsoring employer has carefully contracted to transfer fiduciary liability to its insurer or administrator and otherwise does not exercise or have a fiduciary obligation to exercise discretion or control over these responsibilities, employers sponsoring group health plans that violate federal mandates like the out-of-pocket limit often ultimately bear some or all of these liabilities even if the violation actually was committed by a plan vendor hired to administer the program either because the plan documents name the employer as the “named fiduciary” or “plan administrator” under ERISA, the employer bears fiduciary responsibility functionally for selection or oversight of the culpable party, the employer signed a contract, resolution or plan document obligating the employer to indemnify the service provider for the liability, or a combination of these reasons. Even where the employer avoids these direct or indirect ERISA exposures, however, employers now also need to be concerned that out-of-pocket limitation or other federal health plan rule violations will trigger expensive excise tax liability for the sponsoring employer.
Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate these liabilities, business leaders should act quickly to engage experienced legal counsel for their companies for advice about how to audit their group health plan’s 2014 and 2015 compliance with the out-of-pocket limit and other federal health plan rules within the scope of attorney client privilege while managing fiduciary exposures that could result if the audit is improperly structured or conducted, as well as options for addressing potential 2014, 2015 and future years excise tax and other exposures that compliance deficiencies with these rules could trigger.
Of course, health insurance issuers, administrative service providers, brokers and consultants also face risks when health programs they sell or help administer are not properly designed, documented or administered in compliance with federal health plan rules. Since ACA generally extends the duty to comply with its out-of-pocket and many other reforms directly to insurers, insurers that issue non-compliant group or individual health plans generally risk direct liability for violations. Even where the violation doesn’t trigger direct liability for an insurer, third party or other administrative services provider, broker or consultant to an employer or fiduciary of a noncompliant health plan, these vendors generally need to be concerned about liability risks under a variety of theories. When the involvement includes discretionary involvement in the plan administration, of course, the vendor or advisor could face liability for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA as ERISA defines fiduciary functionally. Even when not a fiduciary, however, insurance, administrative services or other plan vendors and consultants also should keep in mind that employers and fiduciaries that incur unexpected excise tax or other liability for an improperly designed or administered plan are likely to look to the consultants and brokers, administrative or other services or other vendors or advisors they relied on to help design or administer the group health plan. As a consequence, such vendors and consultants should use care to advise, and appropriately document their efforts to fully inform their clients and the appropriateness of their actions both to promote and preserve the client relationship and to guard against potential malpractice, deceptive marketing, breach of contract or other claims that unhappy employers or fiduciaries are likely to lodge against advisors or vendors who the employer or fiduciary relied upon to help design or properly document or administer the group health plan. Ensuring that clients obtain proper legal advice and review both helps mitigate liability for the client and, when done with sufficient timeliness to prevent or mitigate a compliance problem, the legal and relationship risks of the broker or consultant or other vendor that foreseeably often follow when a plan sponsor or fiduciary gets nailed for a noncompliant plan.
When working to manage risks, all parties should recognize the potential benefits of proper involvement of legal counsel in the process. While sponsoring businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to get legal advice in a manner that preserves their potential to claim attorney-client privilege to protect against discovery in the event of future enforcement or litigation actions sensitive discussions and analysis about compliance audits, plan design choices, and other risk management and liability planning as well as to get help evaluating potential future plan design changes or proposed solutions to known or suspected liability exposures, particularly in light of complexity of the exposures and risks.
Since the Form 8928 self-reporting and $100 per day excise tax penalty against employers sponsoring plans violating the out-of-pocket maximum and many other federal health care reforms became effective in 2014, time is of the essence. The Supreme Court’s recent King v. Burwell decision makes it particularly important that employers and other group health plan sponsors, and those named or serving functionally as the plan administrator or other fiduciary responsible for properly administering the group health plan in accordance with these rules move quickly to manage these risks. With the continued limited Republican majority in the Senate, Republicans lack sufficient votes to override a promised Presidential veto of any legislation that would repeal or substantially modify ACA. Accordingly, employers and fiduciaries should not expect relief for current or 2014 violations to come from Congress anytime soon. What they can expect, however, is enforcement to accelerate. resident Obama is moving to help ensure that his Presidential Legacy includes implementation of ACA and to mitigate ACA’s budgetary impacts by collecting excise tax and other penalties from insurers, plan administrators and employers by instructing the Tri-Agencies to move forward on full implementation and enforcement of ACA and other federal health plan rules. As a consequence, employers that sponsored group health coverage in 2014 need to confirm that their plan complied with the out-of-pocket maximum and other specified federal health plan rules or take timely action to self-assess, report on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 8928, and pay the $100 per day per violation penalty required by the Internal Revenue Code for 2014 when filing their 2014 business tax return. Consequently, employer and other group health plan sponsors, their management, fiduciaries and vendors should move quickly to assess 2014 and current compliance and take corrective action as needed as quickly as possible.
Allowable Out-Of-Pocket Limit Amounts For 2014-2016
The ACA out-of-pocket maximum limitation is one of many broad health care reforms enacted by ACA. Under its provisions, federal law now limits the amount of the maximum deductible, co-payments or other cost sharing that most employer or union sponsored group health plans can impose on essential health benefits to the out-of-pocket limitation allowed by ACA § 1302(c)(1). See Public Health Service (PHS) Act §2707(b).
The out-of-pocket limitations of $6,350 for individual only coverage and $12,700 for other than self-only coverage that first took effect with the 2014 plan year, are subject to annual adjustment for inflation under ACA §1302(c)(4) by the premium adjustment percentage beginning this plan year. The IRS recently announced the adjusted limitations that will apply to the 2015 and 2016 plan years. The applicable limits for 2014-2016 are as follows based on this guidance:
Plan Year
Individual Coverage Only
Other Than Self-Only
2014
$6,350
$12,700
2015
6,600
13,200
2016
6,850
13,700
Since noncompliance with this limitation is one of a long list of federal health plan mandates that triggers a duty for the sponsoring employer to self-assess, report and pay an excise tax of $100 per day per violation for post-2013 plan years, employers that sponsored health plans in 2014 generally will want to verify that their plan complied with this out-of-pocket rule in 2014 and ensure that its 2015 plan has been updated to reflect the adjusted limit and otherwise comply with its requirements.
In this respect, the final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016 (2016 Payment Notice) clarifies that the self-only maximum annual limitation on cost sharing applies to each individual, regardless of whether the individual is enrolled in self-only coverage or in coverage other than self-only.
While employers can design their group health plans to apply higher out-of-pocket limitations on coverages for non-essential benefits and out-of-network care, plans designed to take advantage of this permitted distinction must be carefully administered to ensure that the limits allowed for non-essential benefits are not improperly applied to essential benefit coverages under the plan. Employers are cautioned to use care to avoid this from occurring by drafting the plan terms and requiring fiduciaries to administer the plan to ensure that:
The plan properly essential and non-essential health benefits, both in terms and in operation;
The limit is properly applied and calculated with respect to all benefits considered essential health benefits; and
The application of higher out-of-pocket limitations for non-essential benefits does not violate other federal health plan rules such as special federal health plan rules regarding out-of-network emergency care, mental health coverage parity, coverage for newborns and mothers, or the like.
Ensure Plan Language & Operations Comply With Tri-Agency Out-Of-Pocket Guidance & Other Federal Health Plan Rules Harder Than Might Seem
Updating the out-of-pocket maximum rules of a group health plan to comply with the ACA out-of-pocket maximum rule can be more complicated than many employers or plan fiduciaries might realize since the plan terms, and its administration must comply in form and operation with the regulations and other interpretations of the three agencies jointly responsible for administration and enforcement of this and various other federal health plan rules: the Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Labor (DOL) (collectively, the “Tri-Agencies”).
In the case of ACA’s out-of-pocket maximum rules, the Tri-Agencies already have supplemented the guidance in their implementing regulations by publishing a FAQ that gives additional clarification and examples that the Tri-Agencies intend to help explain the proper administration of the rule. Group health plans, their insurers or other fiduciaries, as well as sponsoring employers should take into account all of this existing guidance when reviewing and assessing the compliance of their group health plans, as well as stay vigilant for the publication of additional guidance.
Existing guidance on the out-of-pocket maximum rule states that group health plans and insurance policies generally must count toward the out-of-pocket maximum limit all deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges and any other expenditure the group health plan requires a covered person to pay for a qualified medical expense that is an “essential health benefit” within the meaning of ACA other than premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers and other out-of-network cost-sharing, or spending for non-essential health benefits.
One of the first considerations should be to ensure that the plan document and parties responsible for administer it properly understand and apply the rule to all charges falling within coverage for “essential health benefits.” Technically, the out-of-pocket limitation only applies to coverage of “essential health benefits” within the meaning of ACA, in any group health plan, whether insured or self-insured. What benefits are considered “essential health benefits” is defined by Tri-Agency regulations. The definition of “essential health benefits” in these Tri-Agency regulations is complicated and generally varies by state, even when the group health plan is self-insured. Sponsors of self-insured group health plans and employers sponsoring plans covering individuals in different states generally will want to seek legal advice about the adequacy of their group health plan’s essential health benefit definition to make sure that these rules and their limitations are met.
When applying these limits, employers, insurers, and administrators of group health plans attempting to distinguish non-essential health coverages such as prescription drug, behavior health, or dental coverages provided separately from otherwise applicable major medical coverage should consult with legal counsel to confirm that those arrangements comply with existing guidance on ACA’s out-of-pocket maximum and other federal mandates in form and operation. This analysis generally should both verify that the plan documents and administrative processes incorporate these requirements generally into the plan document as well as include provisions to ensure that these requirements are properly integrated with other federal mandates requiring cost-sharing for emergency care in the case of behavioral health coverage, the applicable federal mental health parity mandates, and other federal health plan rules. Special care and scrutiny should be applied if the group health plan uses multiple service providers to help administer benefits (such as one third-party administrator for major medical coverage, a separate pharmacy benefit manager, and a separate managed behavioral health organization).
Special care also is needed if a group health plan uses separate plan service providers to administer the plan or certain of its provisions. Separate plan service providers may impose different levels of out-of-pocket limitations and may utilize different methods for crediting participants’ expenses against any out-of-pocket maximums. Administrators, insurers or other fiduciaries responsible for administration of these coverages must properly coordinate, and sponsoring employers should consult with legal counsel about auditing their plans for proper coordination of these processes across these different service providers.
Along with making specific plan document and process changes to provide for proper implementation and administration of the out-of-pocket and other federal coverage and benefit mandates, all parties also should review the claims and appeals procedures used in connection with the processing and notification of covered persons about claims and appeals determinations made about denials to ensure that they fully comply with both the DOL’s reasonable claims and appeals regulations and, in the case of non-grandfathered health plans, ACA’s special independent review and other heightened requirements for administering and notifying covered persons or their beneficiaries about claim denials or appeals as any of these violations could trigger the obligation for the sponsoring employer to self-report on IRS Form 8928 and pay the $100 per day per violation ERISA liability for the plan and its fiduciaries, as well as other penalties under ERISA §502(c).
Sponsoring Employers, Plan Fiduciaries and Vendors Should Act To Manage Exposures
Since violations trigger substantial excise tax liability for the sponsoring employer, as well as expose the group health plan and its sponsor, members of management or others acting as fiduciaries to judgments, regulatory penalties, and associated investigation, defense settlement and other costs and disruptions, most sponsoring employers and their leaders generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel knowledgeable about these health plan rules and their management about steps that they should take to prevent or mitigate legal and financial exposures that violations of the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal health plan mandates can trigger. Timely action generally both can help prevent future violations and their expensive redress and mitigate penalties and other exposures incurred for violations, if any, that may have or in the future inadvertently occur.
Such risk management steps generally might include:
Having their plan document reviewed and updated as necessary to comply with the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal health plan rules;
Using care in when selecting and contracting with plan insurers or other vendors, by credentialing the vendor and its practices, including provisions requiring insurers, administrators and other group health plan vendors to provide contractual commitments that the policies and other plan documentation, systems and practices provided by the vendor are and will be administered in accordance with the out-of-pocket and other legal mandates, to provide certification of compliance and notice of violations, correction and indemnification of compliance deficiencies, and other related assurances and taking other documented prudent safeguards to require compliant practices;
Auditing as part of the vendor selection and renewal process and at other times throughout the year the operational compliance of the administration of the group health plan and taking corrective action as needed;
Ensuring that stop-loss, group or other insurance coverages are drafted to include catchall language to help ensure that the employer does not get left unexpectedly self-insuring the cost of funding benefits mandated by law that the carrier asserts fall outside the policy coverage because of gaps between drafting and the law;
Arranging for fiduciary liability, directors and officers or other coverage, indemnification from financially secure vendors, or other backup funding to help protect or mitigate the potential costs or liabilities that the sponsoring employer or its plan fiduciaries can expect to incur in the event of a challenge to the compliance of their group health plan or its practices; and
Work with qualified legal counsel experienced with these matters to help structure, conduct and document compliance efforts and learn what steps should be taken to prevent or quickly mitigate compliance concerns and contain risks and seeking advice promptly about remediation of risks in the event a compliance concern arises.
For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information
If you need help reviewing your group health plan or responding to these new or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, help updating or defending your workforce or employee benefit policies or practices, or other related assistance, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.
Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick│Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.
Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.
Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.
Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.
Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.
Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see http://www.cynthiastamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC website or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at http://www.solutionslawpress.com such as:
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.
Employers sponsoring health plans and members of their management named as plan fiduciaries or otherwise having input or oversight over health plan concerns should verify their company’s group health plan meets the out-of-pocket maximum rules of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) § 1302(c)(1) as well as a long list of other federal health benefit rules to minimize the risk that violations will compel the sponsoring employer to self-assess, self-report on IRS Form 8928, and pay a $100 per day per violation excise tax penalty and while expose the plan and its fiduciaries to fiduciary or other liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ACA). Consequently, sponsoring employers and their management generally will want to ensure that their plan documents are properly updated to comply with the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal requirements, to require contractual commitments to administer the health plan in compliance with and to report, correct, and indemnify for violations of these requirements in vendor contracts with their health plan insurers, administrators and other vendors, and conduct documented audits to verify the health plan’s operational compliance with these requirements as interpreted by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in form and operation. The new self-reporting and excise tax self-assessment and payment requirements for employers coupled with already long-standing fiduciary and other liabilities for fiduciaries, plan administrators and others makes it important that employers sponsoring group health plans and their management or other leaders overseeing or participating in plan design or vendor selection, plan administration or other plan related activities seek the advice and help of qualified, experienced legal counsel for assistance with conducting an appropriate compliance review and risk assessment of their health plans, correcting or taking other steps to mitigate risks from any past or existing violations, and steps to take to tighten documents, vendor contracts, and processes to mitigate compliance or other risks going forward.
Employers, Insurers & Plan Fiduciaries Face Big Risks From Federal Health Plan Rule Violations
As amended by ACA, health plan violations of ACA and various other federal health plan mandates carry big risks for health plans, their sponsoring employers, and representatives of sponsoring employers, insurers and third party administrators responsible as fiduciaries for administering a group health plan in accordance with these federal rules. As amended by ACA, federal law imposes significant penalties against plans, their fiduciaries and even the sponsoring employer if the group health plan violates the ACA out-of-pocket limit or a long list of other ACA and other federal group health rules. Group health plans can face lawsuits from covered persons, their health care providers as assignees or the DOL, to enforce rights to benefits, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. Beyond benefit litigation, the employer or representatives of the sponsoring employer, if any, named or acting as fiduciaries, insurer or third party service providers named or acting as fiduciaries, also could face fiduciary lawsuits seeking damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs of court, for failing to prudently administer the plan in accordance with its terms and the law brought by covered persons or their beneficiaries or the DOL as well as fiduciary breach penalties if the fiduciary breach action is brought by the DOL. If the plan fails to comply with claims and appeals procedures or other ERISA notification requirements, parties named or functioning as the plan administrator for this purpose also could face penalties of up to $125 per violation per day in the case of enforcement actions brought by participants and beneficiaries or $1025 per violation per day in the case of actions brought by the DOL, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement.
Except in rare circumstances where the sponsoring employer has carefully contracted to transfer fiduciary liability to its insurer or administrator and otherwise does not exercise or have a fiduciary obligation to exercise discretion or control over these responsibilities, employers sponsoring group health plans that violate federal mandates like the out-of-pocket limit often ultimately bear some or all of these liabilities even if the violation actually was committed by a plan vendor hired to administer the program either because the plan documents name the employer as the “named fiduciary” or “plan administrator” under ERISA, the employer bears fiduciary responsibility functionally for selection or oversight of the culpable party, the employer signed a contract, resolution or plan document obligating the employer to indemnify the service provider for the liability, or a combination of these reasons. Even where the employer avoids these direct or indirect ERISA exposures, however, employers now also need to be concerned that out-of-pocket limitation or other federal health plan rule violations will trigger expensive excise tax liability for the sponsoring employer.
As part of ACA, the Internal Revenue Code now generally requires employers sponsoring a group health plan that violates the ACA out-of-pocket limit or a long list of other federal health plan rules after 2013 to self-assess, report and pay stiff new excise tax penalties of $100 per day per violation when filing their annual tax return. See,Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision;More Work For Employers, Benefit Plans Following SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling; 2016 & 2017 Health Plan Budgets, Workplans Should Anticipate Expected Changes To SBCs.Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate these liabilities, business leaders should act quickly to engage experienced legal counsel for their companies for advice about how to audit their group health plan’s 2014 and 2015 compliance with the out-of-pocket limit and other federal health plan rules within the scope of attorney client privilege while managing fiduciary exposures that could result if the audit is improperly structured or conducted, as well as options for addressing potential 2014, 2015 and future years excise tax and other exposures that compliance deficiencies with these rules could trigger.
While businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to get legal advice in a manner that preserves their potential to claim attorney-client privilege to protect against discovery in the event of future enforcement or litigation actions sensitive discussions and analysis about compliance audits, plan design choices, and other risk management and liability planning as well as to get help identifying potential plan design, contracting, procedural or other changes that may be needed to fix compliance deficiencies and mitigate other risks, particularly in light of complexity of the exposures and risks.
The Supreme Court’s recent King v. Burwell decision makes it particularly important that employers and other group health plan sponsors, and those named or serving functionally as the plan administrator or other fiduciary responsible for properly administering the group health plan in accordance with these rules move quickly to manage these risks. With the continued limited Republican majority in the Senate, Republicans lack sufficient votes to override a promised Presidential veto of any legislation that would repeal or substantially modify ACA. Meanwhile, President Obama is moving to help ensure that his Presidential Legacy includes implementation of ACA and to mitigate ACA’s budgetary impacts by collecting excise tax and other penalties from insurers, plan administrators and employers by instructing the Tri-Agencies to move forward on full implementation and enforcement of ACA and other federal health plan rules. As a consequence, employers that sponsored group health coverage in 2014 need to confirm that their plan complied with the out-of-pocket maximum and other specified federal health plan rules or take timely action to self-assess, report on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 8928, and pay the $100 per day per violation penalty required by the Internal Revenue Code for 2014 when filing their 2014 business tax return.
Adjusted Out-Of-Pocket Limit Amounts
The ACA out-of-pocket maximum limitation is one of many broad health care reforms enacted by ACA. Under its provisions, federal law now limits the amount of the maximum deductible, co-payments or other cost sharing that most employer or union sponsored group health plans can impose on essential health benefits to the out-of-pocket limitation allowed by ACA § 1302(c)(1). See Public Health Service (PHS) Act §2707(b).
The out-of-pocket limitations of $6,350 for individual only coverage and $12,700 for other than self-only coverage that first took effect with the 2014 plan year, are subject to annual adjustment for inflation under ACA §1302(c)(4) by the premium adjustment percentage beginning this plan year. The IRS recently announced the adjusted limitations that will apply to the 2015 and 2016 plan years. The applicable limits for 2014-2016 are as follows based on this guidance:
Plan Year
Individual Coverage Only
Other Than Self-Only
2014
$6,350
$12,700
2015
6,600
13,200
2016
6,850
13,700
Since noncompliance with this limitation is one of a long list of federal health plan mandates that triggers a duty for the sponsoring employer to self-assess, report and pay an excise tax of $100 per day per violation for post-2013 plan years, employers that sponsored health plans in 2014 generally will want to verify that their plan complied with this out-of-pocket rule in 2014 and ensure that its 2015 plan has been updated to reflect the adjusted limit and otherwise comply with its requirements.
In this respect, the final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016 (2016 Payment Notice) clarifies that the self-only maximum annual limitation on cost sharing applies to each individual, regardless of whether the individual is enrolled in self-only coverage or in coverage other than self-only.
While employers can design their group health plans to apply higher out-of-pocket limitations on coverages for non-essential benefits and out-of-network care, plans designed to take advantage of this permitted distinction must be carefully administered to ensure that the limits allowed for non-essential benefits are not improperly applied to essential benefit coverages under the plan. Employers are cautioned to use care to avoid this from occurring by drafting the plan terms and requiring fiduciaries to administer the plan to ensure that:
The plan properly essential and non-essential health benefits, both in terms and in operation;
The limit is properly applied and calculated with respect to all benefits considered essential health benefits; and
The application of higher out-of-pocket limitations for non-essential benefits does not violate other federal health plan rules such as special federal health plan rules regarding out-of-network emergency care, mental health coverage parity, coverage for newborns and mothers, or the like.
Ensure Plan Language & Operations Comply With Tri-Agency Out-Of-Pocket Guidance & Other Federal Health Plan Rules
Updating the out-of-pocket maximum rules of a group health plan to comply with the ACA out-of-pocket maximum rule can be more complicated than many employers or plan fiduciaries might realize since the plan terms, and its administration must comply in form and operation with the regulations and other interpretations of the three agencies jointly responsible for administration and enforcement of this and various other federal health plan rules: the Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Labor (DOL) (collectively, the “Tri-Agencies”).
In the case of ACA’s out-of-pocket maximum rules, the Tri-Agencies already have supplemented the guidance in their implementing regulations by publishing a FAQ that gives additional clarification and examples that the Tri-Agencies intend to help explain the proper administration of the rule. Group health plans, their insurers or other fiduciaries, as well as sponsoring employers should take into account all of this existing guidance when reviewing and assessing the compliance of their group health plans, as well as stay vigilant for the publication of additional guidance.
Existing guidance on the out-of-pocket maximum rule states that group health plans and insurance policies generally must count toward the out-of-pocket maximum limit all deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges and any other expenditure the group health plan requires a covered person to pay for a qualified medical expense that is an “essential health benefit” within the meaning of ACA other than premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers and other out-of-network cost-sharing, or spending for non-essential health benefits.
One of the first considerations should be to ensure that the plan document and parties responsible for administer it properly understand and apply the rule to all charges falling within coverage for “essential health benefits.” Technically, the out-of-pocket limitation only applies to coverage of “essential health benefits” within the meaning of ACA, in any group health plan, whether insured or self-insured. What benefits are considered “essential health benefits” is defined by Tri-Agency regulations. The definition of “essential health benefits” in these Tri-Agency regulations is complicated and generally varies by state, even when the group health plan is self-insured. Sponsors of self-insured group health plans and employers sponsoring plans covering individuals in different states generally will want to seek legal advice about the adequacy of their group health plan’s essential health benefit definition to make sure that these rules and their limitations are met.
When applying these limits, employers, insurers, and administrators of group health plans attempting to distinguish non-essential health coverages such as prescription drug, behavior health, or dental coverages provided separately from otherwise applicable major medical coverage should consult with legal counsel to confirm that those arrangements comply with existing guidance on ACA’s out-of-pocket maximum and other federal mandates in form and operation. This analysis generally should both verify that the plan documents and administrative processes incorporate these requirements generally into the plan document as well as include provisions to ensure that these requirements are properly integrated with other federal mandates requiring cost-sharing for emergency care in the case of behavioral health coverage, the applicable federal mental health parity mandates, and other federal health plan rules. Special care and scrutiny should be applied if the group health plan uses multiple service providers to help administer benefits (such as one third-party administrator for major medical coverage, a separate pharmacy benefit manager, and a separate managed behavioral health organization).
Special care also is needed if a group health plan uses separate plan service providers to administer the plan or certain of its provisions. Separate plan service providers may impose different levels of out-of-pocket limitations and may utilize different methods for crediting participants’ expenses against any out-of-pocket maximums. Administrators, insurers or other fiduciaries responsible for administration of these coverages must properly coordinate, and sponsoring employers should consult with legal counsel about auditing their plans for proper coordination of these processes across these different service providers.
Along with making specific plan document and process changes to provide for proper implementation and administration of the out-of-pocket and other federal coverage and benefit mandates, all parties also should review the claims and appeals procedures used in connection with the processing and notification of covered persons about claims and appeals determinations made about denials to ensure that they fully comply with both the DOL’s reasonable claims and appeals regulations and, in the case of non-grandfathered health plans, ACA’s special independent review and other heightened requirements for administering and notifying covered persons or their beneficiaries about claim denials or appeals as any of these violations could trigger the obligation for the sponsoring employer to self-report on IRS Form 8928 and pay the $100 per day per violation ERISA liability for the plan and its fiduciaries, as well as other penalties under ERISA §502(c).
Sponsoring Employers, Plan Fiduciaries and Vendors Should Act To Manage Exposures
Since violations trigger substantial excise tax liability for the sponsoring employer, as well as expose the group health plan and its sponsor, members of management or others acting as fiduciaries to judgments, regulatory penalties, and associated investigation, defense settlement and other costs and disruptions, most sponsoring employers and their leaders generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel knowledgeable about these health plan rules and their management about steps that they should take to prevent or mitigate legal and financial exposures that violations of the out-of-pocket maximum and other federal health plan mandates can trigger. Timely action generally both can help prevent future violations and their expensive redress and mitigate penalties and other exposures incurred for violations, if any, that may have or in the future inadvertently occur.
As a part of these efforts, steps that plan sponsors and fiduciaries generally should take include.
Having plan documents and other plan materials and communications carefully review and drafted to meet mandates and mitigate risks;
Using care in when selecting and contracting with plan insurers or other vendors, by conducting appropriate documented review and credentialing of each vendor and its practices, as well as reviewing and negotiating administrative, insurance or other vendor agreements to appropriately name and allocate fiduciary status as well as include provisions requiring insurers, administrators and other group health plan vendors appropriately designate to provide contractual commitments that the policies and other plan documentation, systems and practices provided by the vendor are and will be administered in accordance with the out-of-pocket and other legal mandates, to provide certification of compliance and notice of violations, correction and indemnification of compliance deficiencies, and other related assurances and taking other documented prudent safeguards to require compliant practices;
Auditing as part of the vendor selection and renewal process and at other times throughout the year the operational compliance of the administration of the group health plan and taking corrective action as needed;
Ensuring that stop-loss, group or other insurance coverages are drafted to include catchall language to help ensure that the employer does not get left unexpectedly self-insuring the cost of funding benefits mandated by law that the carrier asserts fall outside the policy coverage because of gaps between drafting and the law;
Arranging for fiduciary liability, directors and officers or other coverage, indemnification from financially secure vendors, or other backup funding to help protect or mitigate the potential costs or liabilities that the sponsoring employer or its plan fiduciaries can expect to incur in the event of a challenge to the compliance of their group health plan or its practices; and
Learning and using appropriate processes to document prudent efforts to appropriately administer the plan in a compliant, legally defensible manner throughout the year.
For Legal or Consulting Advice, Legal Representation, Training Or More Information
If you need help reviewing your group health plan or responding to these new or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, help updating or defending your workforce or employee benefit policies or practices, or other related assistance, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.
Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick│Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.
Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her 27 plus year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.
Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns.
Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, ex-patriate and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.
Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.
Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.
Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see http://www.cynthiastamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC website or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.
About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™
Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at http://www.solutionslawpress.com such as:
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.
Employers Urged Not Overestimate When Plan Qualifies As Excepted Or Overlook Other Applicable Federal Mandates
Changes to the definition of “excepted benefits” in Final Excepted Benefit Rules (Rules) published March 18, 2015 by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (Tri-Agencies) might allow some employer and union group health plan sponsors, in limited circumstances, to offer wraparound coverage to certain employees purchasing individual health insurance in the private market, including in the Health Insurance Marketplace without violating the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) if the arrangements are carefully crafted to meet the specific requirements of one of two pilot programs set forth in the Rules.
Employers contemplating or maintaining arrangements that they or their service providers consider excepted benefits should use care to ensure that their arrangements are vetted in light of the latest guidance by experienced, qualified employee benefits counsel knowledgeable in these and other applicable group health plan rules and products because it is important to meet all of the requirements for qualifying the arrangement as an excepted benefit arrangement under the Rules and other applicable requirements of law to minimize the likelihood that the arrangement does not produce undesirable unanticipated consequences.
Beyond the new Rules, the Tri-Agencies have published a host of other guidance regarding the arrangements that qualify as excepted benefit arrangements and those that the Tri-Agencies view as not meeting this definition, as well as the implications of these distinctions. This includes guidance that reflects the Tri-Agencies concerns that many arrangements prompted by certain brokers or other advisors as qualifying as excepted benefits, alone or in conjunction with other arrangements sponsored or offered by the employer, do not qualify as excepted benefit arrangements as well as guidance about potential consequences of these arrangements that the promoter or an employer considering these arrangements should fully understand before moving forward, For this reason, employers that already provide, or are interested in providing health coverage under an employer sponsored arrangement to employees or their dependents enrolled in individual health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace or other privately provided individual insurance arrangement are urged to carefully review the proposed arrangement in light of the Rules, as well as to understand the treatment and implication of their proposed arrangement under other applicable Federal group health plan mandates and rules.
As interpreted by the Tri-Agencies, except for excepted benefit arrangements as defined in the Rules, employers generally cannot pay for individual health coverage or offer or provide wrap around or other group health coverage to employees that enroll in individual coverage The Rules amend the definition of excepted benefits to include under very narrow specified conditions an employer to offer specified limited coverage that wraps around individual health insurance when the employer provided coverage is specifically designed to provide “meaningful benefits” such as coverage for expanded in-network medical clinics or providers, reimbursement for the full cost of primary care, or coverage of the cost of prescription drugs not on the formulary of the primary plan and otherwise fulfills the requirements of the Rules.
The final rules permit group health plan sponsors, only in the limited circumstances identified in the Rules, to offer wraparound coverage to employees who are purchasing individual health insurance in the private market, including in the Health Insurance Marketplace.
The Rules establish two pilot programs where the Rules treat wraparound coverage as an excepted benefit that an employers can offer to individuals enrolled in health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace:
One allows wraparound benefits only for multi-state plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace; and
One that allows wraparound benefits for part-time workers who enroll in an individual health insurance policy or in Basic Health Plan coverage for low-income individuals established under the Affordable Care Act. These workers could, under existing excepted benefit rules, qualify for a flexible spending arrangement alternative to this wraparound coverage.
When the requirements of the Rules are met, the Rules allow employers a narrow opportunity to offer certain employees enrolled in individual coverage wrap around health coverage from the employer to enhance that individual coverage.
Because the arrangement must qualify as an excepted benefit arrangement under the Rules, employers also need to fully understand the implications of the excepted health benefit status of the anticipated arrangement under related rules like the Portability Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), the ACA rules and other relevant laws and arrangements.
Because of the necessity to ensure that any arrangement an employer contemplates offering as an excepted benefit meet all of the required conditions to qualify for that status under the Rules and otherwise meet all other requirements of applicable law, it is important to carefully review any such proposed arrangement with qualified legal counsel.
Most employers contemplating moving forward to implement such arrangements also should consider seeking written opinions of qualified counsel that meets the Internal Revenue Service’s requirements to be a “tax reliance opinion” as well as the written opinion of the broker, insurer or other vendor promoting or endorsing the arrangement.
Employers also should keep in mind that with excepted benefit status may excuse the arrangement from the obligation to comply with certain mandates of ACA, the Portability Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act or certain other rules, these arrangements generally remain subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, various Code rules, and a host of other federal rules. As a result, employers should consult with qualified legal counsel about the implications and compliance of these and other health coverage arrangements to ensure that they properly understand all responsibilities and consequences of these arrangements and manage potential responsibilities and liabilities.
Employers and their health plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors are reminded that the excepted benefit distinction has implications on other compliance obligations and health plan treatment of the arrangement in question. For instance, excepted benefit coverage typically does not qualify as minimum excepted coverage that an employer can count as providing minimum essential coverage for purposes of the Code Section 4980H employer shared responsibility payment rules or as enrollment by the individual in minimum individual coverage for purposes of the employee avoiding liability for the individual shared responsibility payment.
Beyond ensuring that the proposed wrap around arrangement meets the requirements to qualify as an excepted benefit under the Rules, employers and those working with them on the design or use of these arrangements need to verify that the arrangements and other arrangements of the employer by their terms and in operation comply with other health plan rules and guidance. With regard to dealings with employees who are enrolled in individual policies, employers must keep in mind the Tri-Agencies rules prohibiting employer payment or subsidization of the costs of those policies. The Tri-Agencies have made clear that they construe ACA as prohibiting employer payment or reimbursement of the cost of individual health insurance policies (other than excepted benefit only arrangements) p covering employees or dependents whether purchased from a Health Insurance Marketplace or otherwise. This prohibition extends to any employer payment or reimbursement arrangement, whether pre-tax or after-tax or on a group or individual basis. See Notice 2015-17 (affirming employer payment plans or other arrangements that reimburse or pay employees for costs of individual health coverage purchased through Health Insurance Marketplaces or private insurance markets are prohibited as previously announced in Notice 2013-54). See also ACA Prohibits Employer Paying Individual Health Premiums For Employees, IRS Says Again.
About the Author
If your business need legal advice about the your health or other employee benefit or human resources practices, assistance assessing or resolving potential past or existing compliance exposures, or monitoring and responding to these or other workforce, benefits and compensation, performance and risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile www.cynthiastamer.com or by registering to receive these and other updates here. Recent examples of these updates include:
Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, Co-Chair and Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plans Committee, an ABA Joint Committee On Employee Benefits Council representative, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, ABA, and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years’ experience advising health plan and employee benefit, insurance, financial services, employer and health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health plans and insurers about ACA, and a wide range of other plan design, administration, data security and privacy and other compliance risk management policies. Ms. Stamer also regularly represents clients and works with Congress and state legislatures, EBSA, IRS, EEOC, OCR and other HHS agencies, state insurance and other regulators, and others. She also publishes and speaks extensively on health and other employee benefit plan and insurance, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, privacy, regulatory and public policy and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
NOTE: This article is provided for educational purposes. It is does not establish any attorney-client relationship nor provide or serve as a substitute for legal advice to any individual or organization. Readers must engage properly qualified legal counsel to secure legal advice about the rules discussed in light of specific circumstances. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, or (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here.
Employers and other health plan sponsors, insurers, and their administrators and service providers should consider the advisability of updating health plan cost projections, plan documents and procedures, communications and other practices in response to new and proposed guidance interpreting federal health plan rules under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) released today (November 20, 2012).
Solutions Law Press, Inc. plans will host a webex executive study group briefing to update its members and other interested persons on this new and proposed guidance on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at Noon Central Time. Interested persons wishing details about registration for this briefing should send an e-mail here.
Guidance Released Today
Earlier today, the Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services issued guidance implementing ACA provisions that make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, as well as guidance impacting wellness and disease management programs and the “essential health benefits” definition that plays a key role in defining the benefits package mandates applicable to exchange and other health plans and policies required to comply with ACA’s mandates. This guidance includes:
A proposed rule that, beginning in 2014, prohibits health insurance companies from discriminating against individuals because of a pre-existing or chronic condition. Under the rule, insurance companies would be allowed to vary premiums within limits, only based on age, tobacco use, family size and geography. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to any American because of a pre-existing condition or from charging higher premiums to certain enrollees because of their current or past health problems, gender, occupation, and small employer size or industry that the agencies intend to ensure that people for whom coverage would otherwise be unaffordable and young adults have access to a catastrophic coverage plan in the individual market. See HHS Proposed Regulation – Health Insurance Market Rules available here;
A proposed rule outlining policies and standards for coverage of essential health benefits, while giving states more flexibility to implement the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are a core set of benefits that would give consumers a consistent way to compare health plans in the individual and small group markets. A companion letter on the flexibility in implementing the essential health benefits in Medicaid was also sent to states. Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation available here; and
A proposed rule implementing and expanding employment-based wellness programs that the agencies intend to promote health and help control health care spending, while prohibiting what the agencies consider unfair underwriting practices that impermissibly discriminate based on health status. See Proposed regulations here; Study available here; Fact Sheet available here.
With this guidance impacting key plan design and cost concerns, employers and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and administrators, insurers and their vendors will need to act quickly to evaluate the potential implications of this guidance in light of already existing rules and enforcement positions, their plan design and costs, and market and other factors.
Today’s Guidance Just Tip of Iceberg
The guidance published today is the first in an expected deluge of regulatory pronouncements that HHS, DOL, the Internal Revenue Service and state insurance agencies are expected to issue as the rush to finalize arrangements and guidance governing the implementation and enforcement of the ACA health care reforms scheduled to take effect and to tweek guidance on provisions already effective under the law. This guidance adds to the extensive list of previously issued guidance previously published by the Agencies since Congress passed ACA. With the election behind the US and the Supreme Court having rejected initial challenges by businesses and individuals to the employer and individual mandates last Summer, employers and insurers now must get cracking to update their programs and cost estimates to comply with both existing and new guidance while keeping a close eye out for potential changes to ACA or other federal or state health coverage laws as the new Congress is expected to continue to discuss refinements or other changes when the new Congress begins work in January 2013.
What Should Employers Do To Cope With These & Other Health Plan Mandates?
Facing the operational and financial challenges of meeting these mandates, many business leaders continue report significant concern about what they should do to respond to these requirements. For some practical steps that businesses confronting these issues should take to cope with ACA and other health plan responsibilities, check out the “12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now” article by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer in the October 26, 2012 online edition of Texas CEO Magazine. To read the full article, see here.
Clearly in light of the new guidance, employers, insurers, health plan fiduciaries and their service providers need to act quickly to familiarize themselves with the guidance and make any need adjustments to their plans, communications, practices and budgets warranted by the new guidance and remain vigilent for and prepared to do the same with other guidance and reform proposals as it is released.
Beyond responding to the new guidance and other future developments, most health plan sponsors, insurers, administrators and other fiduciaries, and their vendors also should consider conducting this specific analysis and update of their health benefit programs in the context of a broader strategy.
In her 12-Steps Article, Ms. Stamer writes, “While most employers and insurers of employment-based group health plans view with great concern radically expanded health plan responsibilities taking effect in 2014, many are failing to take steps critical to manage exposures and costs already arising from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal health plan regulations.”
In the article, Ms Stamer discusses the following 12 steps that she suggests most businesses consider to help catch up with current responsibilities and to help their business manage future costs and responsibilities:
Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) They Wear
Know What Rules Apply, and How They Affect a Group Health Plan
Review and Update Health Plan Documents to Meet Requirements and Manage Exposure
Update the Plan For Changing Compliance Requirements and Enhanced Defensibility
Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation and Processes, and Follow Them
Ensure the Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in a Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner
Prepare For ACA’s Expanded Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements
Select, Contract and Manage Vendors With Care
Help Plan Members Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training and Supportive Tools
Pack The Parachute and Locate The Nearest Exit Doors
Get Moving On Compliance and Risk Management Issues
Provide Input On Affordable Care Act Rules
For Help or More Information
If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About Ms. Stamer
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.
A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Updateand other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Business leaders concerned about what to do to manage health benefit costs, responsibilities and liabilities over the next year and to position to cope with impending shifts in the health plan regulatory landscape ahead should check out the “12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now” article by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer in the October 26, 2012 online edition of Texas CEO Magazine.
Nationally recognized for quarter century of work advising businesses and governments about health benefit and other employee benefits and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer says regardless of who wins the Presidential election next week, employers need to get moving to deal with current health plan obligations and exposures and brace for new future challenges.
Ms. Stamer writes, “While most employers and insurers of employment-based group health plans view with great concern radically expanded health plan responsibilities taking effect in 2014, many are failing to take steps critical to manage exposures and costs already arising from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other federal health plan regulations.”
In the article, Ms Stamer discusses the following 12 steps that she suggests most businesses consider to help catch up with current responsibilities and to help position their business to anticipate and manage future costs and responsibilities:
Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) They Wear
Know What Rules Apply, and How They Affect a Group Health Plan
Review and Update Health Plan Documents to Meet Requirements and Manage Exposure
Update the Plan For Changing Compliance Requirements and Enhanced Defensibility
Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation and Processes, and Follow Them
Ensure the Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in a Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner
Prepare For ACA’s Expanded Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements
Select, Contract and Manage Vendors With Care
Help Plan Members Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training and Supportive Tools
Pack The Parachute and Locate The Nearest Exit Doors
Get Moving On Compliance and Risk Management Issues
Provide Input On Affordable Care Act Rules
For Help or More Information
If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. To read the full article, see here. To learn more, check out some of Ms. Stamer’s upcoming speaking engagements, her many publications or contact Ms. Stamer directly at (469) 767-8872.
About Ms. Stamer
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.
A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Updateand other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Severance Deals Get Hotel Bel-Air Nailed By NLRB For Labor Law Violations
A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that nails Hotel Bel-Air (Hotel) for offering severance packages to unionized workers highlights one of a range of potentially costly missteps that businesses conducting reductions in force or other re-engineering risk if they fail to properly understand and manage legal requirements when designing and implementing the change.
Since labor and other workforce-related risks are long-standing, some businesses, their leaders and consultants may be tempted to assume that prior experience means these are handled. The fact specific nature of the risks and changing rules and enforcement, however, makes it critical not to be over-confident. Legal and operational mismanagement of these risks can disrupt achievement of the purpose of the change and add significant added cost and exposure for the business and its management. Proper use of qualified legal counsel as part of the process is important both to help identify and properly manage risk and to leverage attorney-client privilege to help shield sensitive communications in the planning and implementation of these activities from discovery.
Employer’s Obligations To Negotiate & Deal With Union
Once a union is recognized as the certified representative of employees in a workplace, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits the employer from unilaterally changing term and conditions of employment or from going around the union to bargain directly with employees over layoffs, the effects of layoffs and other material terms and conditions of employment. As part of this responsibility, the NLRA and other federal and state laws generally require that employers provide notification to the union of planned reductions in force, plant closings or other operational changes that might impact the workforce and bargain in good faith with the union before conducting layoffs, or offering or making in work rules, compensation, severance or other benefits or other terms or conditions of employment.
In general, an employer’s duty to bargain with a union generally also continues to apply when the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer expires unless and until the parties reach agreement or impasse. While negotiations continue, the employer’s obligation to refrain from making unilateral changes generally encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation unless and until an overall impasse has been reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole. See Pleasantview Nursing Home, 335 NLRB 96 (2001) citing Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991). The NLRB considers negotiations to be in progress, and will not find a genuine impasse to exist, until the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be “futile” or that there is “no realistic possibility that continuation of discussion . . . would be fruitful.” Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 343 NLRB 542 556 (2004).
Because the existence of impasse is a factual determination that depends on a variety of factors, including the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations, the good faith of the parties, the importance of the disputed issues, the parties’ bargaining history, and the length of their negotiations, Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), parties to the negotiation often do not necessarily agree when they have reached impasse. As the September 28 decision by the NLRB against the Hotel shows, employers that act unilaterally based on an overly optimistic determination of impasse suffer significant financial and other operational and legal risks for engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA.
NLRB Nails Hotel Bel-Air For Failing To Bargain, Offering Severance Around Union
In its September 28, 2012 Bel-Air Hotel Decision, the NLRB ruled the Hotel engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA when it offered severance packages to laid off workers in return for the workers’ waiver of recall rights without bargaining to impasse with the union representing its workers, UNITE HERE Local 11 (Union), about the effects of the temporary shutdown.
The NLRB also ruled the Hotel engaged in unlawful direct dealing by contacting the employees about severance packages without going through the Union even though the Hotel’s contract with the union had expired when the Hotel contacted the laid off union employees to offer severance in return for waivers. As a result, the NLRB ordered the Hotel to rescind the waiver and release forms signed by the Union members and to meet and bargain with the Union on these terms.
Bel-Air Hotel Decision Background
The NLRB order against the Hotel resulted from unfair labor practice charges that the Union filed against the Hotel after the Hotel offered severance packages directly to workers in exchange for the workers’ waiver of their recall rights while the workers were laid off during the Hotel’s temporary closure for renovations in 2009.
Before the Hotel offered the severance package directly to the laid off workers, the Hotel and the Union bargained for nine months about the terms of a separation agreement and recall rights for employees who would lose their jobs during a planned 2-year shutdown of the facility for renovation. In April, 2010, the Hotel gave the Union what it said was the “last, best, and final offer” on severance pay for unit employees laid off during the temporary renovation closure. While the Union and the Hotel did talk after the Hotel made this final offer. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach an agreement before their existing collective bargaining agreement expired or before the Hotel shut down the facility for renovation. After the shutdown, the Union and the Hotel stopped formal negotiations but had some “off the record” informal communications until June. With no resolution by the end of June, the Hotel moved forward unilaterally to offer severance directly to the laid off employees as outlined in its final offer.
Although the facility was closed and the employees already laid off when the Hotel’s contract with the Union expired, the Union claimed the Hotel remained obligated to negotiate with the Union. The Union said a flurry of “off-the-record” discussions between the Hotel and the Union leading up to and after the termination showed the parties had not reached impasse. The Union also separately charged that the Hotel violated the NLRA by going around the Union to directly contact employees to offer severance payments in exchange for waiving their right to return to their jobs when the Hotel reopened after renovation.
In response to unfair labor practices charges filed by the Union, Hotel management among other things argued that the Union no longer represented the employees when it offered severance and because the parties’ contract had expired and the parties were at impasse when the Hotel made the offer.
Union Remained Representative Despite Layoff & Temporary Facilities Shutdown
The NLRB found “meritless” the Hotel’s effort to rely upon the NLRB’s decision in Sterling Processing Corp., 291 NLRB 208 (1988) to support the Hotel’s claim that it had no duty to bargain or extend the severance offers through the Union because it made the unilateral severance offer when the facility was closed and the employees were already laid off.
In Sterling, the NLRB found the employer’s unilateral modification of preclosure wages and working conditions did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA because when the employer acted unilaterally, there were no employees for the union to represent because when the employer took its unilateral action, the employer already had permanently closed the facility and terminated all employees with no reasonable expectation of reemployment.
The NLRB ruled that the circumstances when the Hotel acted were distinguishable from Sterling because the unit employees on layoff from the Hotel retained a reasonable expectation of recall from layoff since the Hotel’s closure was only temporary and the Hotel had only laid off, and not yet discharged the employees when it made the unilateral severance offers. According to the NLRB, the terms of the severance offer evidenced the existence of an expectation of recall because under the terms of that offer, employees who accepted a severance payment waived their recall rights. See, Rockwood Energy & Mineral Corp., 299 NLRB 1136, 1139 fn. 11 (1990), enfd. 942 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1991)(finding that lengthy suspension of production did not relieve employer of its bargaining obligation where laid off employees had “some expectation of recall,” and distinguishing Sterling).
No Impasse Because Of Informal “Off The Record” Communications
The Hotel also separately and unsuccessfully argued that its direct offer of severance benefits to laid off employees was not an unfair labor practice because the parties had bargained to impasse before the offer was made. In response to the Union’s claim that a series of “off-the-record” exchanges between the Union and Hotel after the contract expired reflected a continuation of bargaining, the Hotel argued that an impasse existed because the Union was not engaged in good faith negotiations and there was not any possibility that the informal discussions between the Union and the Hotel would result in any fruitful change in the parties positions.
In an effort to support its position, the Hotel management argued that the Union’s negotiation behavior with other Los Angeles hotels showed the Union had a practice of “artificially extend[ing] negotiations in bad faith” that supported the Hotel’s claim that continued negotiation would be futile. The NLRB rejected this argument too. It said evidence that the Union did not bargain in good faith to string out negotiations when negotiating with other businesses as part of a campaign to coerce all hotels city wide to agree to a standard contract had no probative relevance for purposes of determining if the Hotel and the Union had bargained to impasse in their negotiations and did not prove bad faith by the Union for purposes of its negotiation with the Hotel.
Having rejected these and other Hotel arguments and evidence of impasse, the NLRB ruled that the evidence indicated that the parties continued communications had narrowed their differences before and after the Hotel made its last final offer on April 9. Given this progress, the NLRB ruled that parties’ participation in informal off the record discussions well into June were sufficient to show the existence of some possibility that continued negotiations might result in a fruitful change in the parties position sufficient to obligate the Hotel to continue to bargain with the Union.
NLRB Order Carries Heavy Cost for Bel-Air Hotel
Complying the NLRB’s orders to remedy the breach will be painful and expensive for the Hotel, particularly since by the time the order was issued, the renovation was substantially completed.
To fulfill the requirements of the Order, the Hotel must, among other things:
Bargain with the Union as the recognized and exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees about the effects on bargaining unit employees of the temporary shutdown of the hotel for renovation and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed collective bargaining agreement;
Not deal directly with bargaining unit employees about severance, waiver and release or other terms or arrangements relating to the impact of the temporary shutdown on the bargaining unit employees
Rescind the waiver and release agreements signed by individual bargaining unit employees which included the waiver of rehire rights; and
Post a NLRB-mandated written notice in the workplace for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places.
This means that the Hotel will have to work through issues about how to find positions for employees, if any, who originally agreed to waive their rehire rights who now wish to be rehired, as well as engage in expensive bargaining and the implementation of the terms of any resulting collective bargaining agreement.
Union Duties One of Many Potential HR RIF & Deal Traps
Collective bargaining responsibilities like those that resulted in the NLRB order against the Hotel are only one of many potential labor, human resources and benefits-related traps that businesses need to negotiate carefully when planning and executing layoffs or other workforce restructurings in connection with cost or other restructurings, business transactions or other activities impacting the workforce.
Some examples of other issues and risks that businesses involved in changes impacting their workforce also may need to manage include but are not limited to the need to manage discrimination, federal and state leave, whistleblower and retaliation, and other general employment-related legal risks and responsibilities; to give Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN) or state law required plant closing or other notifications to workers, unions, government officials, vendors, customers, lenders or other creditors, insurers or others; to disclose, review, modify or terminate contracts, employee benefit plan documents, communications and other materials; to modify fiduciary, officer, board or other assignments and other related insurance, indemnification, bonding and related arrangements; to comply with employee benefit and compensation related plan document, fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, communication, benefit funding or distribution, reporting and disclosure and other Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Internal Revenue Code, securities and other laws and regulations; privacy, trade secret, and other data integration, confidentiality, and information security and management concerns; Sarbanes-Oxley and other securities, accounting or related requirements; system and data integration; and many others.
Because improper handling of these or other responsibilities in connection with these responsibilities can significantly undermine the businesses’ ability to realize the financial and operational goals behind the action, as well as expose the business to potentially costly liability, businesses anticipating or conducting reductions in the force or other activities that will impact their workforce should seek advice and help from qualified legal counsel experienced with these concerns early to mitigate these concerns.
If you have any questions or need help with these or other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail tocstamer@solutionslawyer.net.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
President Obama’s declaration today (October 1, 2012) of October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month reminds business that U.S. businesses and their leaders need to tighten their disability discrimination risk management and compliance in light of the Obama Administration’s emphasis on aggressively interpreting and enforcing disability discrimination laws, rising private plaintiff lawsuits and other recent regulatory and judicial changes.
In his proclaimation today, President Obama reaffirmed his often stated commitment to the aggressive enforcement of disability laws and other efforts to promote opportunities for disabled individuals, stating:
“[My Administration remains committed to helping our businesses, schools, and communities support our entire workforce. To meet this challenge,… we are striving to make it easier to get and keep those jobs by improving compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
As the administration marks the month, U.S. employers and other business leaders can expect the Obama Administration will be stepping up its already aggressive outreach to disabled Americans to promote awareness of their disability law rights and tools for asserting and enforcing these rights.
Business Faces Growing Employment Disability Exposures
As part of his administration’s commitment, the Obama Administration has moved to aggressively enforce the disability and accommodations of teh Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal disability discrimination laws. The reach and effectiveness of these efforts has been enhanced by statutory and regulatory changes that require employers to exercise greater efforts to meet their compliance obligations and manage their disability and other discrimination risks.
ADA Exposures Heightened
The ADA, for instance, generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).
In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:
Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.
Rehabilitation Act Risks For Government Contractors
Beyond the generally applicable risks applicable to all employers of more than 15 employees under the ADA, federal and state government contractors face additional responsibilities and risks.
Subject to limited exceptions, government contractors providing services or supplies on ARRA or other government funded contracts or projects must comply both with generally applicable employment discrimination requirements and special statutory and contractual nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and recordkeeping requirements applicable government contractors. For instance, federal law generally requires government contractors to comply with the special equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246(EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Pursuant to these laws, business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, generally must follow a number of statutory and contractual requirements to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP generally audits and enforces these requirements.Memo to Funding Recipients: Compliance with Applicable Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders.
OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA.
These government contractor disability discrimination risks are particularly acute where the government contractor works on or provides supplies on contacts or projects funded in whole or in part by monies provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures. See, e.g. Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.
Businesses Should Act To Manage Risks
The ADAAA amendments, the Rehabilitation Act’s expanded reach, and the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify and claim protection as disabled under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other disability discrimination laws.
In light of these and other developments and risks, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope.
Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC, OFCCP and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment Attorney and Management Consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469..
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource, employee benefits and management experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.
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 in this electronic Solutions Law publication available for review here including:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at 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.
Federal contractor Nash Finch Co. (Nash Finch) will pay $188,500 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to certain women applicants who the U.S Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) charged Nash rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company’s distribution facility in Lumberton, Minnesota under a consent decree approved by an OFCCP administrative law judge this week.
Nash Finch Settlement Highlights
Minneapolis-based and the second-largest wholesale food distributor in the U.S., Nash Finch distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.
The consent decree resolves an OFCCP administrative action commenced after OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch’s employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. OFCCP asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006. See Solis v. Nash Finch Co., OFCCP Case Number: 2011-OFC-00004. Under the consent decree, Nash Finch will pay $188,500 in back pay and interest to the 84 women. In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.
Reflective of the growing emphasis of OFCCP and other federal agencies on audit and enforcement of compliance with federal employment discrimination and affirmative action laws, the Nash Finch charges and resultant settlement highlight that the Obama Administration’s emphasis on employment discrimination and other civil rights laws expansion and enforcement is resulting in increased liability for employers that fail to take appropriate steps to manage compliance related risks.
Settlements Remind ARRA & Other Federal Government Contractors To Act To Defend Against Heightened Requirements & Enforcement
The OFCCP action and settlement against Nash Finch and other recent OFCCP and other employment discrimination law enforcement actions and settlements against government contractors and other U.S. employers remind U.S. businesses that provide services or supplies directly or as subcontractors on federally funded projects or contracts to review and tighten their employment discrimination, affirmative action and other employment practices in light of the Obama Administration’s heightened emphasis on auditing and enforcing OFCCP and other nondiscrimination and affirmative action rules.
Subject to limited exceptions, government contractors providing services or supplies on ARRA or other government funded contracts or projects must comply both with generally applicable employment discrimination requirements and special statutory and contractual nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and recordkeeping requirements applicable government contractors. For instance, federal law generally requires government contractors to comply with the special equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246(EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Pursuant to these laws, business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, generally must follow a number of statutory and contractual requirements to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP generally audits and enforces these requirements.Memo to Funding Recipients: Compliance with Applicable Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders. OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA. While many government contractors may be tempted to become complacent about OFCCP exposures based on reports of the OFCCP’s relatively low enforcement in the past, see Report Says OFCCP Enforcement Data Show Infrequent Veteran, Disability Bias Findings | Bloomberg BNA recent enforcement data documents OFCCP is getting much more serious and aggressive about auditing and enforcing compliance with its affirmative action and other requirements against government contractors under the Obama Administration. See, OFCCP Enforcement Data is Available on a New DOL Website. See also, Affirmative Action Update: OFCCP Enforcement Statistics Show Increase in Violations.
Government Contractors On ARRA Funded Projects Particularly Exposed
When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures.
For one thing, the range of businesses required to comply with OFCCP’s equal employment opportunity requirements for government contractors is broader. Government contractors who sometimes qualify as exempt from certain OFCCP rules may not qualify as exempt when working on ARRA funded projects. Government contractors that on other types of federally-funded projects might qualify as exempt from certain OFCCP requirements often are unaware that the range of federal contractors required to comply with the OFCCP equal employment opportunity and related rules of ARRA is much broader than often applies for federal projects funded from other sources. Smaller government contractors run the risk of unknowingly incurring liability by mistakenly assuming that the small size of their contract exempts them from otherwise applicable OFCCP requirements. Consequently, before relying on any assumed exemption, a government contractor providing goods or services for ARRA-funded project directly or as a subcontractor should specifically verify the applicability of those exemptions and document that analysis.
Furthermore, all government contractors on ARRA-funded projects need to understand that they operate subject to heightened compliance and enforcement scrutiny. The OFCCP particularly scrutinizes government contractor equal employment opportunity and other civil rights requirements on ARRA funded projects. The “Procedures for Scheduling and Conducting Compliance Evaluations of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Funded Contractors” issued July 7, 2009. SeeOFCCP Order No. ADM 0901/SEL the “ARRA Procedures”) subject government contractors on ARRA funded projects to special rules and heightened OFCCP oversight. OFCCP has established separate scheduling procedures to provide for compliance evaluations of ARRA funded contractors separate from those usually applicable to government contractors because ARRA also obligates OFCCP separately to track its ARRA-related and non-ARRA-related enforcement activities.
The ARRA Procedures require that Regional, District and Area offices conduct a full compliance evaluation, including a full desk audit and onsite review, of every ARRA funded contractor establishment scheduled, even in the absence of systemic discrimination indicators. Normally applied by OFCCP to non-ARRA government contract reviews, Active Case Management (ACM) procedures normally allow OFCCP to conduct only an abbreviated desk audit in the absence of systematic discrimination indicators in non-ARRA compliance evaluations. These ACM procedures will not be used in ARRA compliance evaluations.
Due to the special nature of ARRA, OFCCP also has indicated that the ARRA compliance evaluations will not apply the following scheduling exceptions typically applicable in non-ARRA contract compliance reviews. For instance, OFCCP ARRA procedures state:
No more than 25 establishments per contractor exception: Presently, for contractors with multiple establishments, the Federal Contractor Scheduling System (FCSS) limits the number of compliance evaluations scheduled to 25 new evaluations during a scheduling cycle. The 25-establishment limit does not apply to ARRA compliance evaluations.
Two year exception: Traditionally, contractor establishments that have been reviewed by OFCCP are excepted from further review for a 24-month period. Under ARRA scheduling procedures, ARRA funded contractor establishments may be eligible for an ARRA compliance evaluation even if they have been reviewed within the previous 24 months. However, pre-award clearance is not required for contractor establishments reviewed by OFCCP within the past 24 months.
However, ARRA scheduling procedures will apply the following scheduling exceptions:
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an FCSS compliance evaluation will be excepted from scheduling and review under ARRA procedures for six months from the date of the FCSS case closure.
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA compliance evaluation will not be subject to another ARRA evaluation.
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA evaluation will also be excepted from scheduling for a standard OFCCP compliance evaluation, pursuant to FCSS, for 24 months from the date of closure of the ARRA compliance evaluation.
ARRA funded contractors also are subject to other special pre-award clearance, pre-award intake, pre-award classification and other special procedures. The ARRA Procedures also set for special requirements particularly applicable to construction contracts funded by ARRA.
The special procedures and heightened compliance review procedures provided for under the ARRA Procedures indicate that government contractors or subcontractors providing services or supplies on projects funded with ARRA funds will want to place special attention on compliance with OFCCP and other federal equal employment opportunity and other employment regulation compliance.
Government Contractors, Other US Employers Urged To Act To Manage Exposures
In the face of the rising emphasis of OFCCP, the EEOC and other federal and state agencies on these audit and enforcement activities, government contractors and other U.S. businesses should act to position themselves to defend against likely challenges and scrutiny. All government contractors and other businesses should review and tighten the adequacy of their existing compliance and risk management practices to promote and document compliance. These efforts should focus on all relevant hiring, recruitment, promotion, compensation, recordkeeping and reporting policies and practices internally, as well as those of any recruiting agencies, subcontractors or other business partners whose actions might impact on compliance. Among other things, these steps should include the following:
Government contractors and subcontractors should specifically review their existing or proposed contracts and involvements to identify projects or contracts which may involve federal or state contracts or funding that could trigger responsibility. In this respect, businesses should conduct well-documented inquiries when proposing and accepting contracts to ensure that potential obligations as a government contractor are not overlooked because of inadequate intake procedures. Businesses also should keep in mind that ARRA and other federal program funds often may be filtered through a complex maze of federal grants or program funding to states or other organizations, which may pass along government contractor status and liability when subcontracting for services as part of the implementation of broader programs. Since the existence of these obligations often is signaled by contractual representations in the contracts with these parties, careful review of contractual or bid specifications and commitments is essential. However, it also generally is advisable also to inquire about whether the requested products or services are provided pursuant to programs or contracts subject to these requirements early in the process.
In addition to working to identify contracts and arrangements that are covered by OFCCP or other requirements, government contractors and other businesses also should reconfirm and continuously monitor the specific reporting, affirmative action, and other requirements that apply to any programs that may be subject to OFCCP requirements to ensure that they fully understand and implement appropriate procedures to comply with these conditions as well as pass along the obligation to make similarly necessary arrangements to any subcontractors or suppliers that the government contractor involves as a subcontractor.
Throughout the course of the contract, the government contractor also should take steps to maintain and file all required reports and monitor and audit operational compliance with these and other requirements.
The organization should develop and administer appropriate procedures for monitoring and investigating potential compliance concerns and maintaining documentation of that activity. Any known potential deficiencies or complaints should be promptly investigated and redressed with the assistance of qualified counsel in a prompt manner to mitigate potential risks.
Documentation should be carefully retained and organized on a real time and continuous basis to faciliate efficiency and effectiveness in completing required reports, monitoring compliance indicators and responding to OFCCP, EEOC or private plaintiff charges as well as other compliance inquiries.
Any audit inquiries or charges should be promptly referred to qualified legal counsel for timely evaluation and response.
When available and affordable, management should consider securing appropriate employment practices liability coverage, indemnification from business partners and other liability protection and assurance to help mitigate investigagtion and defense costs.
Board members or other senior management should include periodic review of compliance in their agenda.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment, employee benefits, contracting or other risk management or internal controls compliance practices, responding to an OFCCP, EEOC or other government or private plaintiff charge or investigation, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce or compliance management, employee benefits, compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
California nursing home buyer must pay estimated $1.25 million in backpay and interest, recognize union & hire 50 employees of seller following purchase
Last week’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order requiring the buyer of a California nursing home to pay approximately $1.25 million in backpay and interest, rehire 50 employees and recognize the seller’s union reminders buyers of union-organized businesses of some of the significant risks of mishandling union-related obligations in merger and acquisition, bankruptcy and other corporate transactions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other federal labor laws.
Buyer’s Obligations To Honor Seller’s Collective Bargaining Obligations
Under the NLRA, new owners of a union facility that are “successors” of the seller generally must recognize and bargain with the existing union if “the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of employees hired by the new employer were represented by a recently certified bargaining agent.” See NLRB v. Burns Sec. Servs., 406 U.S. 272, 281 (1972).
In assembling its workforce, a successor employer also generally “may not refuse to hire the predecessor’s employees solely because they were represented by a union or to avoid having to recognize a union.” U.S. Marine Corp., 293 NLRB 669, 670 (1989), enfd., 944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1991).
Nasaky, Inc. NLRB Order
Last week’s NLRB Order requires Nasaky, Inc., the buyer of the Yuba Skilled Nursing Center in Yuba City, California, to recognize and honor collective bargaining obligations that the seller Nazareth Enterprises owed the before the sale and rehire and pay backpay and interest to make whole 50 of the seller’s former employees who the NLRB determined Nasaky, Inc. wrongfully refused to hire when it took over the facility from the prior owner, Nazareth Enterprises.
Before Nasaky, Inc. bought the nursing home, many of the employees at the nursing home were represented by the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (Union). After Nasaky, Inc. agreed to buy the facility but before it took control of its operations, Nasaky, Inc. advertised in the media for new workers to staff the facility and told existing employees at the facility that they must reapply to have a chance of keeping their jobs under the new ownership.
When Nasaky, Inc. took operating control of the Facility, facility operations continued as before with the same patients receiving the same services. The main difference was the workforce. The new staff included 90 employees in erstwhile bargaining unit positions, of which forty were former employees of the predecessor employer and fifty were newcomers. Nasaky, Inc. then took the position that the change in the workforce excused it from responsibility for recognizing or bargaining with the Union or honoring the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and seller Nazareth Enterprises.
When the union demanded that Nasaky, Inc. recognize the Union and honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with Nazareth Enterprises, Nasaky, Inc. refused. Instead, Nasaky, Inc. notified the union that it would not allow the Union on its premises, would not honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with the seller, and did not accept any of the predecessor’s terms and conditions of employment. The Union then filed charges with the NLRB, charging that Nazareth Enterprises had breached its obligations as a successor under the NLRA.
After NLRB Regional Director Joseph F. Frankl agreed and issued a complaint, California Administrative Law Judge Gerald Etchingham found all the allegations true based on a two-day hearing. He rejected all of Nasaky’s explanations for why it declined to hire most of those who had worked for the previous employer. See ALJ Decision. Since Nasaky, Inc did not file exceptions, the NLRB ordered Nasaky, Inc. immediately to recognize and bargain with the Union, hire the former employees and make them whole. The amount of backpay and interest is expected to approximate $1.25 million.
Managing Labor Exposures In Business Transactions
The NLRB’s order against Nasaky, Inc. highlights some of the business and operational risks that buyers and sellers can face if labor-management relations are misperceived or mismanaged in connection with business transactions. Because the existence of collective bargaining agreements or other labor obligations can substantially affect the operational flexibility of a buyer, buyers need to investigate and carefully evaluate the potential existence and nature of their obligations as part of their due diligence strategy before the transaction. A well-considered understanding of whether the structure of the transaction is likely to result in the buyer being considered a successor for purposes of union organizing and collective bargaining obligations also is very important so that the buyer and seller can properly appreciate and deal with any resulting responsibilities.
Beyond the potential duty to recognize a seller’s collective bargaining obligations, buyers and sellers also should consider the potential consequences of the proposed transaction on severance, pension, health, layoff and recall and other rights and obligations that may arise. At minimum, the existence of these responsibilities and their attendant costs are likely to impact the course of the negotiations.
When a worksite is union organized, for instance, additional obligations may arise in the handling of reductions in force or other transactions as a result of the union presence. For example, in addition to otherwise applicable responsibilities applicable to non-union affected transaction, the Worker Adjustment Retraining Act (WARN) and other plant closing laws and/or collective bargaining agreements may impose special notification or other requirements before a reduction in force or other transaction related activities.
Similarly, the existence of collective bargaining agreements also may trigger obligations for one or both parties to engage in collective bargaining over contemplated changes in terms and conditions of employment, to provide severance, to accellerate or fund severance, benefits or other obligations, to provide continued health or other coverage, to honor seniority, recall or other rights or deal with a host of other special contractual obligations.
Where the collective bargaining arrangements of the seller currently or in the past have included obligations to contribute to a multiemployer, collectively bargained pension or welfare plan, the buyer and seller also need to consider both the potential for withdrawal liability or other obligations and any opportunities to minimize these exposures in structuring the allocation of the arrangement. In this case, both parties need to recognize that differences exist between the federals for determining when successor liability results under the withdrawal liability rules than typically apply other labor and employment law purposes. While buyers and sellers often presume that the stock versus assess sale distinction that typically applies for many other legal purposes will apply, this can be an expensive mistake in the case of determining a buyer’s obligation to honor the seller’s collective bargaining obligations post deal. Likewise, buyers can be exposed to multiemployer successor liability from asset transactions, although it may be possible to mitigate or avoid such liabilities by incorporating appropriate representations in the sale documents or through other steps. Since these multiemployer withdrawal and contribution liabilities generally attach on a controlled group basis, both parties need to properly appreciate and address these concerns early in the transaction to mitigate their risks and properly value the transaction.
In light of these and other potential labor-related risks that may affect corporate and other business transactions, parties contemplating or participating in these transactions are urged to engage and consult with competent legal counsel with specific experience in such labor management relations and multiemployer benefit plan matters early in the process.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate labor and employment, human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes significant experience advising and representing buyers, sellers, their commonly controlled and affiliated entities, lenders, bankruptcy trustees and committees and others regarding labor-management relations, employment, compensation, employee benefits and other human resources related exposures, strategies and negotiations. She also has served as counsel to multiemployer and single employer pension, profit-sharing and other retirement, health and welfare, severance and other plans and their fiduciaries and sponsors in relation to these and other transactions.
Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
With the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies prioritizing disability discrimination law enforcement, businesses and individuals looking to find solutions to help accommodate persons with disabilities may find a new free app for Apple Devices from the Department of Defense (DOD) Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program helpful.
New DOD Accommodation Apple App & Other Accommodation Aids
The DOD Apple application is an example of the many new resources that the federal government is providing to promote compliance with disability discrimination laws and to help people with disabilities under the Obama Administration.
The DOD Apple application now available in the iTunes App Store lets users browse the latest news and tips on assistive technology, scan CAP’s calendar of events and stay connected to the disability community. DOD says an Android version is coming soon.
CAP works to make the Federal Government a model employer of people with disabilities by providing job accommodations and equal access to electronic and information technology. With disabilities and other discrimination law compliance audit and enforcement rising, this new application provides another timely resource for government contractors and agencies, and other businesses looking to provide accommodations and manage disability risks.
The DOD application is just one of many emerging training and other tools that the agencies are rolling out to promote employment and other opportunities for people with disabilities. The Federal Government is devoting increasing resources to educating the disabled about resources including employment discrimination protections and other aids. The October 10 Work Incentive Seminar Event webinar is another example. To be held on October 10, 2012 from 3 – 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, the webinar is for people who receive Social Security disability benefits and want to learn how the Ticket to Work program can help them earn money and become financially independent. It also will discuss writing a resume, job interview tips, whether or not to discuss your disability with a potential employer and tips for on the job success. Officials invites interested parties to register online or call 1-866-968-7842 (V) or 1-866-833-2967 (TTY/TDD).
Rising Liability & Enforcement Make Accommodation & Other Disability Law Risk Management Critical
Managing disability risks and meeting accommodation obligations is increasingly important as US government agencies place growing emphasis on enforcing disability discrimination laws and regulations that increasingly result in significant liability for U.S. businesses.
For instance, in June, 2012, the U.S. Justice Department announced a $10,250,000 settlement with JPI Construction L.P. (JPI) and six other JPI firms is the largest-ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement. The settlement resolves Justice Department charges the JPI and its affiliates illegally discriminated on the basis of disability in the design and construction of multifamily housing complexes.
Under the settlement of disability charges initiated against JPI a few years ago, JPI will pay $10,250,000 into an accessibility fund to update properties so they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act(FHA), and to increase the availability of housing that is accessible to people with disabilities.
The record settlement follows the reaffirmation of the Obama Administration’s continuing committment to find and punish companies that illegally discriminate or fail to provide required accommodations in violation of Federal disability discrimination laws made by President Obama and others to mark the 13th Anniversary of the June 22, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C.
As part of that anniversary celebration of Olmstead, the Obama Administration reaffirmed its continuing commitment to fight disability discriminated and touted the success of its “significant progress continuing to enforce Olmstead as well as more broadly helping to level the playing field for people with disabilities.”
In Olmstead, the Supreme Court ruled in that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the ADA.
In marking the 13th anniversary of this decision, President Obama said, “As we mark the anniversary of this historic civil rights decision, we reaffirm our commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”
In reaffirming this commitment, the Administration highlighted its past and continuing efforts to enforce disability discrimination laws, as well as other activities to support individuals with disability.
As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreementwith the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a websitededicated to Olmstead enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes.
These Justice Department efforts also are reflected in the companion enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute disability discrimination by the Labor Department Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in employment, the HUD and related areas, the Department of Education in education and related fields and a host of other agencies.
Where the entity is a private or government agency that is a government contractor or receiving other federal funds or grants, compliance with the ADA and other nondiscrimination and civil rights laws is particularly important as the contracts or regulations pursuant to which these funds are granted typically require compliance with these and other special nondiscrimination rules. In the case of funds provided under the 2009 Stimulus Bill, the scope of businesses subject to these requirements and the likelihood of audits was specifically increased in many ways, making recipients of these funds at particular risk for failing to fulfill requirements.
These Federal enforcement activities are further heightened by rising private litigation of disability claims. These public and private actions are encouraged by changes made by Congress to the ADA, which make it easier for plaintiff’s bringing disabilities claims to win, as well as the proactive agenda of the Obama Administration in enforcing disability discrimination laws.
In light of these continuing enforcement efforts, businesses should continue and heighten their diligence against possible disability discrimination exposures by strengthening policies, practices, training and documentation to keep up compliance and to position to defend against possible charges.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Businesses concerned about Obama Administration-backed efforts to promote its pro-labor agenda must stay diligent despite the set back suffered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in its attempt to a Federal Judge to challenge state laws that purport to require secret balloting in union elections in NLRB v. State of Arizona.
Federal District Judge Frederick J. Martone handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with NLRB efforts to strengthen labor organizing powers by restricting secret ballot protections when he rejected the NLRB claims that an Arizona Constitutional Amendment mandating secret balloting in union elections was an unconstitutional infringement on the NLRB’s powers in his September 5, 2012 decision in NLRB v. State of Arizona, the Court left the door open for a potentially successful challenge to the Arizona secret ballot amendment in the future depending on how Arizona applies the law. Furthermore, considered in the context of the Obama Administration’s broader pro-union regulatory and enforcement agenda, the NLRB’s challenge to the Arizona and other state secret ballot laws reminds businesses that their operation face a minefield of mounting labor-management relations risks icluding many that create traps for management sometimes even in the case of non-union workplaces. In light of these expanding exposures, business leaders should update their policies and practices to mitigate the rising risks while keeping a close eye on the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to expand the power of organized labor by challenging secret ballot mandates in Arizona and other states and the plethora of other pro-union regulatory and enforcement efforts.
NLRB Attacks On Workers’ Secret Balloting Rights
Undermining worker’s secret ballot rights is a key initiative that organized labor with the support of the Obama Administration has promoted to help union organization efforts.
Secret balloting of workers in union organizing elections is designed to promote the ability of worker’s to vote their wishes free from the fear of retaliation by unions or management. It has been a key element of the NLRA since its enactment.
The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace generally is a two-step process that begins with the submission by organizers to the NLRB of a petition or authorization card signed by at least 30% of the employees requesting recognition of the union. Under existing law, once the NLRB verifies that the organizers have met the petition or authorization card requirement, it generally orders a secret ballot election unless more than 50% of the workers have signed authorization cards and either:
The employer notifies the NLRB that it is waiving the secret ballot and voluntarily recognizing the union; or
The NLRB orders the employer to recognize a union based on the NLRB’s determination that the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.
Since the Obama Administration came to power, however, labor with the support of the NLRB and the Obama Administration have included efforts to eliminate or get around secret balloting as part of their broader campaign to strengthen and promote unions and their power. These efforts are reflected in the sharp increase in orders by the NLRB with new Obama appointees that employers recognize unions without balloting, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are pushing to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make union recognition mandatory without any balloting when the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, and challenges to state laws that would impede these efforts like that brought against the State of Arizona. While Congressional Democrats and the Administration have thus far failed to get the legislation passed, they continue to voice their support for and intention to pursue its enactment after the elections in November.
NLRB’s Challenge To Arizona Constitution’s Secret Ballot Provision
In NLRB v. State of Arizona, Judge Frederick J. Martone on September 5, 2012 handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with its efforts to avoid or cut secret ballot protection when it granted the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss the case but left the door open for future action.
As Federal legislation and enforcement actions that would limit workers’ rights to vote in a secret ballot rights have continued, Arizona and various other states have enacted laws to protect secret ballot rights in their states.
In January 2011, the NLRB advised Arizona and three other states that recently adopted “secret-ballot amendments” conflicted with longstanding federal labor law by restricting the methods by which employees can choose a union. When no agreement could be reached, the NLRB filed suit to have the Arizona amendment declared unconstitutional.
The Arizona lawsuit challenged a 2010 constitutional amendment to the Arizona Constitution that states”[t]he right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation is fundamental and shall be guaranteed where local, state or federal law permits or requires elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation.” Arizona Constitution, Article 2 § 37. In its lawsuit, the NLRB asked the Federal Court to declare Article 2 § 37 unconstitutional and preempted to the extent that it applies to private employers, private employees, and labor organizations subject to the NLRA on the grounds that the state secret ballot rule “creates a state forum to protect employee representation rights, a task which Congress assigned exclusively to the NLRB.
Among its other efforts to defend the statute, Arizona argued there was no preemption because the state’s “guarantee” of a secret ballot election would only apply if the voluntary recognition option is not selected.
In reaching its ruling, the Federal Court hung its hat on this argument. “It is possible that state litigation invoking (the amendment) may impermissibly clash with the NLRB’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes over employee recognition, conduct secret ballot elections, and address unfair labor practices,” Judge Martone wrote. However, because the amendment has not yet been applied, Judge Martone wrote that he could not assume that it would conflict with the NLRA.
Arizona Decision A Temporary Victory In Battle In Labor-Management Relations War
While the court rejected the NLRB challenge of the Arizona secret ballot requirement this week, the NLRB’s announced disagreement with the decision coupled with the limited scope of the ruling makes clear that businesses watch for another NLRB challenge based on the implementation of the law as well as other new regulatory and enforcement traps for employers.
The court battle over Arizona’s secret ballot amendment is just one of the many areas where the NLRB under the Obama Administration is pursuing a pro-union agenda. In addition to challenging state laws that might operate to restrict union organizing or other activities, the NLRB also has adopted and is promoting the adoption of other pro-labor rules as well as stepping up enforcement on behalf of labor. See e.g.,NLRB Moves To Promote Non-Union Employee Use of Collective Action Rights By Launching Webpage; NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints Formal Proceedings Comments Feed; NLRB Settlement Shows Care Necessary When Using Social Networking & Other Policies RestrictingEmployee Communications. As part of these efforts, for instance, the NLRB increasingly is challenging the authority of employers to enforce mandatory arbitration provisions in employee handbooks or employment agreements, to regulate social media, and to engage in a broad range of other common employer practices while at the same time, it is using its regulatory powers to promote employer posting and other requirements designed to educate workers about their organizational rights. As many of these new rules apply both to unionized workplaces and ununionized workplace, these and other evolving rules often leave all employers to significant and often underappreciated labor law risks in a broad range of circumstances. This risk tends to take on particular significance for unorganized workforces due to a low awareness or appreciation of these changes or their implications on unorganized workforces by their management team. Mistakes are increasingly costly in the current enforcement environment.
Costly Consequences For Employers
The statistics show the cost of management mishandling of labor relations in today’s environment is expensive and growing. This pro-labor regulatory and enforcement agenda as resulted in a significant rise in NLRB unfair labor practice charges in recent years. According to NLRB statistics, the number of unfair labor practice charges brought by the NLRB steadily rose from 2009 to 2011. The number of charges filed by was 1,342 in 2011, 1,242 in 2010, 1,166 in 2009 and 1,108 in 2008. Moreover, NLRB statistics also document that backpay and other remedies also have risen sharply during this period. For instance, in 2008, the NLRB ordered a total of $68,800,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines in 9,400 cases. In contrast, in 2009, the NLRB ordered $77,700,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines against employers even though the number of cases dropped to 8,700,000 cases. This trend continued in 2010, where out of 8,300 cases, the NLRB ordered employers to pay $86,100,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines. See NLRB Statistics. See also NLRB Case Decisions.
In light of this increased activism, employers should exercise care when using mandatory arbitration, compensation gag rule, or other similar provisions; dealing with requests for employee representation by union and non-union employees in organizing, contracting and even disciplinary actions; establishing and administering social networking, communication and other policies; and a wide range of other situations. In addition, employers concerned about these or other labor activities should consult competent counsel for advice about appropriate options and risks for dealing with these activities.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the NLRA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks.
Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource, labor and employment and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, labor management, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally.
Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net
If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of Ms. Stamer’s other recent updates, including:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
From handling requests for light duty or other modifications follow a leave to investigating the medical justification for leaves or the fitness of an employee to return to work following a medical absence, employers need to use care to manage disability discrimination exposures.
Today’s announcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Wal-Mart) will pay $50,000 in back pay and damages to settle an EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit highlights the potential disability discrimination risks that employers can face when deciding not to provide a requested accommodation to a worker returning from medical leave while other recent enforcement actions show ADA risks from simply making medical inquiries to a worker on or returning from medical leave.
In its lawsuit against Wal-Mart, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the EEOC charged that a Carlsbad, N.M Wal-Mart store violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing a part-time sales clerk, Marcia Arney because the store refused to provide temporary accommodations ordered by her physician following a period of medical leave.
According to the EEOC lawsuit, when Arney, a 22-year Wal-Mart employee, showed the store manager a note from her doctor requesting an accommodation involving periodic breaks off her feet, the manager refused to return her to her job unless she obtained a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC claims that had Wal-Mart inquired further, it would have known the accommodation need was temporary and in any case, that Wal-Mart easily could have accommodated the restriction.
Under the consent decree settling the suit, Wal-Mart will conduct annual live ADA training of management officials at its Carlsbad store and post a notice on its agreement with the EEOC so that employees are aware of procedures for reporting disability discrimination. Wal-Mart also committed to not require disabled workers to produce a full release from their doctor upon returning from a medical leave. Further, Wal-Mart agreed to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees to find a reasonable accommodation to assist them in performing their jobs and to report future requests for accommodation, as well as charges and lawsuits alleging disability discrimination to the EEOC for the duration of the decree.
Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations reflect Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to make sure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a disabled person with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.
As reflected by the Wal-Mart, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Disabled employees or applicants that can prove they fully were denied reasonable accommodations or otherwise subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).
The lawsuit against Wal-Mart is part of a wave of lawsuits in which the EEOC or other agencies under the Obama Administration are aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In the Wal-Mart case, the suit challenged an employer’s refusal to provide requested accommodations. In other cases, however, the EEOC or other agencies under the Obama Administration also have challenged medical inquiries made by an employer to employees during or returning from leave. Both types of suits send clear signals that employers should use care in making medical inquiries and responding to requests for accommodation from employees taking or returning from medical leaves. See, e.g., Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.
To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks , businesses generally should act to manage their exposures. Management needs to recognize the likely need to defend medical inquiries, decisions to refuse accommodation requests or other similar actions that arise when dealing with employees taking or returning from medical leave due to a disability, illness or injury. Employers need to critically check and document the legitimate business justification for making a medical inquiry or refusing a requested accommodation based on a well-documented investigation and analysis tailored to the specific situation of each requesting employee.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information that could be helpful or hurtful in the event of a discrimination charge. Businesses need to ensure that all required records and statistics are collected. In addition, businesses also should consider strengthening record creation and retention efforts to help preserve other evidence that could be invaluable to defending charges and change the way that decisions are made and documented to position their organizations to more effectively demonstrate the defensibility of their employment and other business activities against potential nondiscrimination charges.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Employers that require employees to submit to medical examinations, question employees about physician or mental conditions or disabilities while on medical leave or for other fitness for duty assessments, or engage in other similar activities should evaluate the defensibility of those practices in light of the growing challenges to these and other employee screening practices by the Obama Administration and private plaintiff attorneys like the Justice Department disability discrimination complaint that lead to a $475,000 settlement against Baltimore County, Maryland.
Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers
On August 7, 2012, the Justice Department announced that Baltimore County, Maryland will pay $475,000 and change its hiring procedures to resolve a Justice Department lawsuit filed that charged the county violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and disability-related inquiries without a proper reason, and by excluding applicants from emergency medical technician (EMT) positions because of their diabetes. The prosecution is notable both for the Justice Department’s challenge of health screenings of EMTs and other workers in key safety positions generally as well as the Justice Department’s challenges to the employer’s medical inquiries to workers on medical leave.
Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions concerning disability-related inquiries and medical examinations reflect Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to ensure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a disabled person with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.
As reflected by the Baltimore County settlement, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).
The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland is one in a growing series of lawsuits in which the Justice Department or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In its lawsuit against the County, the Justice Department complaint identified 10 current and former police officers, firefighters, EMTs, civilian employees and applicants who were allegedly subjected to inappropriate and intrusive medical examinations and/or other disability-based discrimination. Justice Department officials claimed the County required some employees to undergo medical examinations or respond to medical inquiries that were unrelated to their ability to perform the functions of their jobs. The complaint also alleged the County required employees to submit to medical examinations that were improperly timed, such as requiring an employee who was on medical leave and undergoing medical treatment to submit to a medical exam even though the employee was not attempting to return to work yet.
According to the complaint, numerous affected employees – some of whom had worked for the County for decades – submitted to the improper medical exams for fear of discipline or termination if they refused. The complaint also alleges that the county retaliated against an employee who tried to caution against the unlawful medical exams and refused to hire two qualified applicants for EMT positions because they had diabetes.
In the proposed consent decree filed on August 7, 2012 and awaiting District Court approval, the County seeks to resolve the lawsuit by agreeing to:
Pay $475,000 to the complainants and provide additional work-related benefits (including retirement benefits and back pay, plus interest);
Adopt new policies and procedures regarding the administration of medical examinations and inquiries;
Refrain from using the services of the medical examiner who conducted the overbroad medical examinations in question;
End the automatic exclusion of job applicants who have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; and
Give ADA training to all current supervisory employees and all employees who participate in making personnel decisions.
The Baltimore County suit is reflective of the aggressive emphasis that the Obama Administration is placing on challenging employers that require employees to undergo medical screening, respond to medical inquiries or engage in other practices that the EEOC, Justice Department or other Obama Administration officials under Title I of the ADA, as well as its heavy emphasis upon enforcement of the ADA and other disability discrimination laws against U.S. businesses and state and local government agencies generally.
The Justice Department action against Baltimore County is part of the Obama Administration’s sweeping effort to enforce employment and other disability discrimination laws against businesses and state and local government agencies alike. While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. This enforcement targets both public employers like Baltimore County, and private employers. In the private employer arena, for instance, the EEOC earlier this year sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the ADA by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.
According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”
As illustrated by the suits against Baltimore County, Texas Wendy’s and many other public and private employers, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.
Defending disability discrimination charges has become more complicated due to both the aggressive interpretation and enforcement of the ADA under the Obama Administration and amendments to the ADA that aid private plaintiffs, the EEOC, the Justice Department and others to prove their case. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, signed into law on September 25, 2008, broadened the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the ADAAA:
Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.
The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes. Given the Obama Administration’s well-documented, self-touted activism of the EEOC, Justice Department and other federal agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their employment disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.
Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled taking into account both the broadened disability definition and the aggressive interpretative stance of the Obama Administration. Businesses also generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to promote the ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009. Added together, employment related disability discrimination are large and growing, meriting stepped up risk assessment and management.
Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations
Guarding against disability discrimination in employment is not the only area that businesses need to prepare to defend against. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”
As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department has aggressively enforced the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws against state agencies and private businesses that it perceives to have improperly discriminated against disabled individuals. For instance, the Justice Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Justice Department has a websitededicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. Statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes have expanded the scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws and risks of charges of discrimination.
To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.comincluding:
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Tables Present Employment Discrimination Statistics in User-Friendly Format
New employment discrimination charge statistics made available online by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May, 2012 provide a helpful risk assessment tool for private sector employers looking to understand and decide where to deploy resources to management their employment discrimination exposures.
In May, the EEOC put private sector workplace discrimination charge statistics for each of the nation’s 50 states and U.S. Territories for fiscal years 2009-2011 online. These data provide a look at EEOC charge receipts, broken down by the basis of discrimination, as well as the percent of total state and national charges. The state data tables are available online at http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges_by_state.cfm.
The EEOC plans to update the state data each fiscal year.
The availability of these statistics comes at an opportune time. Disability and other discrimination challenges are rising. Since taking office, President Obama has made enforcement of disability and other employment discrimination laws a top priority by both pursing enforcement directly and stepping up public outreach and education efforts to promote awareness and encourage private enforcement. These efforts have been further strengthened by statutory and regulatory amendments to disability discrimination and other discrimination laws. As a result of these developments and a tightening job market, discrimination claims are on the rise.
To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks , businesses generally should act to manage their exposures. Management should exercise caution to carefully design and implement employment discrimination and related employment policies. They should implement exit interview, hotline and other practices to help detect and resolve potential discrimination exposures early. They also should carefully document legitimate disciplinary and other non-discriminatory justifications for employment related activities and conduct regular training for management and employees.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information that could be helpful or hurtful in the event of a discriminatioj charge. Businesses need to ensure that all required records and statistics are collected. In addition, businesses also should consider strengthing record creation and retention efforts to help preserve other evidence that could be invaluable to defending charges and change the way that decisions are made and documented to position their organizations to more effectively demonstrate the defensibility of their employment and other business activities against potential nondiscrimination charges.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Statements of President Obama made today (June 22, 2012) in celebration of the 13th anniversary of the June 22, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. are a reminder that U.S. businesses face a continuing and growing need to be on guard to defend against potential disability discrimination liabilities. Coupled with the well-documented activism of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.
In Olmstead, the Supreme Court ruled in that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In marking the 13th anniversary of this decision, President Obama said, “As we mark the anniversary of this historic civil rights decision, we reaffirm our commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”
In reaffirming this commitment, the Administration highlighted its past and continuing efforts to enforce disability discrimination laws, as well as other activities to support individuals with disability.
As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a website dedicated to Olmstead enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes.
These Justice Department efforts also are reflected in the companion enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute disability discrimination by the Labor Department Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in employment, the Department of Housing & Urban Development in housing and related areas, the Department of Education in education and related fields and a host of other agencies.
While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabilities Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.
According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”
Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures
As illustrated by the suit against Texas Wendy’s, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.
The ADA generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.
In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:
Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.
Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).
The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes.
To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.
Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment record keeping to enhance their ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net
About Solutions Law Press
Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.
Killeen Fast-Food Restaurant Refused to Hire Hearing-Impaired Applicant Despite His Qualifications, Federal Agency Charges
Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabililties Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration.
Wendy’s Suit
The EEOC charges in its suit against Texas Wendy’s, Case No. 6:12-CV-00091-WSS in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.
According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system utilized by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”
Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures
As illustrated by the suit against Texas Wendy’s, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.
The ADA generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.
In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:
Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.
Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).
The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes.
To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.
Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 214.270.2402.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.
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 in this electronic Solutions Law publication 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Effective yesterday, the Temporary Extension Act of 2010, H.R. 4691,extended unemployment benefits to April 5, 2010. It also extended and expanded the COBRA premium subsidy requirements originally established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and plan sponsor penalties for noncompliance.
In recent days, H.R. 4691 drew great media attention when its enactment was delayed by a filibuster by Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning. As media coverage of the Bunning filibuster focused almost exclusively on its unemployment benefit extension provisions, many U.S. employers and others are unaware of its provisions extending and expanding the COBRA premium subsidy mandates and authorizing higher pay for Medicare doctors and funding for federal highway programs. President Obama signed H.R. 4691 into law on March 2, 2010 just hours after Senator Bunning ended his highly publicized filibuster.
Unemployment Benefit Extensions
H.R. 4691’s unemployment insurance benefit provisions became immediately effective when signed by the President. These provisions:
Extend the period during which individuals may file applications for Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) from the current end date of February 28, 2010 to April 5, 2010 and extend the period during which individuals may claim and be paid EUC from July 31, 2010 to September 4, 2010.
Extend from the current end date of February 28, 2010 to April 5, 2010 the period during which individuals may qualify for the Federal Additional Compensation (FAC), the extra $25 weekly benefit amount on state and federal unemployment compensation, while also providing for weekly payment during the phase out period for weeks ending October 5, 2010 instead of August 31, 2010.
Extend the period during which 100% federal reimbursement for weeks of regular federal extended benefit payments to April 5, 2010, with the state option to continue the extended period from July 31, 2010 to September 4, 2010.
COBRA Premium Subsidy Extended & New Penalties Added
In addition to extending unemployment benefits, H.R. 4691 also extends and expands the availability of the temporary COBRA subsidy rules originally added to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) medical coverage continuation requirements by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“AARA”) last February. For details about these COBRA premium subsidy amendments, see here. To minimize their COBRA rights under the amended COBRA premium subsidy rules, group health plans, their employer or union sponsors, administrators, insurers and service providers will need to act quickly to prepare and provider required updated notifications to assistance eligible individuals of these extended eligibility periods and their resulting rights, and otherwise update their plan documents, procedures, and COBRA notifications in light of these new rules.
For Added Information or Assistance
If your organization need advice or assistance with these or other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation or related matters, consider contacting Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and representing management about labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation and other related management matters. 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 hereor 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.
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, seehere. 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 morehere.
State Civil Lawsuits
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 plaintiffs 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, 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 hereor 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.
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer’s article Health Plans & Business Associates Face 2/17 Deadline To Comply With HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes is featured in the Winter, 2010 edition of the SouthWest Benefits Association e-Connection. The article originally published in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefit Update highlights the need for health plans, employer and other plan sponsors, administrators, and health insurers as well as the brokers, advisors, and other service providers performing functions on behalf of these entities to update their plans, policies, vendor agreements, practices, privacy notices and other communications and other materials, conduct training and take other steps in response to tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under Privacy & Security Standards of HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act).
Founded in 1975, SouthWest Benefits is a regional, non-profit association designed to foster relationships and support the educational growth of professionals in employee benefits through an annual schedule of professional educational conferences and workshops. As part of these activities, the SWBA is scheduled to host its 35th Annual Conference on May 12th-14th at the Westin Riverwalk in San Antonio. For information about these and other SWBA, see here.
A former Southwest Benefits Association board member who remains active in the organization, Ms. Stamer is a board certified labor and employment attorney recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 22 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on employee benefit and related matters. As a core focus of her role as the Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources programs and practices. Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations 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 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.
Today (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). Coming as U.S. employers continue to struggle to provide health benefits in the face of skyrocketing health benefit costs, these and other new federal regulations impacting employment-based health plans and their sponsoring businesses, fiduciaries and administrators are forcing U.S. business leaders to make appropriate health plan cost and compliance management a key management priority.
2/17/10 & Other HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes Require Prompt Attention
The HIPAA Privacy Rule 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.
The risks of noncompliance for health plans, business associates and others mishandling protected health information are real and growing. 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.
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 Annoucment 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 morehere.
To manage these and other HIPAA-related risks, sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and their vendors should begin with carefully and timely reviewing and updating existing plan documents, vendor agreements, privacy notices and other communications and associated practices and policies. The focus of these efforts definitely should seek both to adopt the specific technical changes necessary to make the health plans and their contracts technically comply on paper with these and other HIPAA mandates, and to tailor these documents, communications and practices promote operational compliance and minimize exposure to associated risks. In relation to these efforts, sponsoring employers, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators also should ensure that required certifications from employers and other plan sponsors, representations from business associates, training and other compliance conditions are properly in place. In this respect, employers sponsoring health plans should not overlook the potential need to adopt appropriate policies and implement needed training and safeguards to enable the health plan and the employer demonstrate, if necessary that HIPAA’s requirements for sharing protected health information with members of the employer’s workforce for plan administration, underwriting or certain other purposes have been satisfied.
Other Health Plan Updates Also Required
The HIPAA Privacy Rule changes effective today are only part of the ever-growing list of federal mandates that group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and service providers need to be concerned about. In addition to the new HIPAA Privacy Rule requirements taking effect today, health plans, their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries, insurers, business associates and other service providers face a host of other new federal health plan and privacy mandates that have taken effect over the past year, and will become subject to additional mandates in upcoming months. Consequently, while focusing on HIPAA compliance, health plans, their employer or other sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers also should not overlook the need to review and update their health plans in response to a host of other changes in federal health plan mandates.
These and other developments make it imperative that health plans, their employer or other sponsors, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and service providers get serious about complying with these and other federal health plan mandates and managing health plan related liabilities and costs. Sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should ensure that health plan documents, insurance and other vendor contracts, policies, procedures and communications are timely updated to comply with these and other emerging mandates. When implementing these updates, parties concerned about costs or liabilities also should exercise care to ensure that plan documents, communications, contracts, administrative forms and procedures are optimally designed and drafted not only to be technically compliant, but also to support the enforceability of plan design and cost expectations, minimize administrative and other avoidable costs, and minimize liability exposures. In furtherance of these efforts, employer and other plan sponsors also should consider tightening their practices and requirements for credentialing, selection, oversight and contracting with administrators and vendors, and take other prudent steps to manage health plan related risks.
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 hereor 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:
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
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.
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, seehere.
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.
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.
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
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 hereor 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.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued contempt of court orders against Brian Andre, former owner of Andre Tuckpointing and Brickwork (AT&B), Andre Stone and Mason Work Inc. (AS&MW) and Regina Shaw, owner of AS&MW. Now the employers must pay more than $258,000 in fines and comply with other sanctions.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OHSA enforces these requirements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued the contempt orders against the St. Louis-area company and individuals for failing to comply with court orders enforcing citations of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC).
The contempt citations stem from numerous citations OSHA issued to AT&B and its successor, AS&MW, for willful, repeat and serious violations related to fall hazards, scaffolding erection deficiencies, power tool guarding and other hazards in connection with multiple projects in the St. Louis area. When the companies failed to comply with a court’s order enforcing OSHRC’s final order, the Labor Department sought and was granted the contempt orders by the Court. Based on determinations and recommendations of a Special Master to the Court of Appeals, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found all three parties in contempt, and imposed sanctions. Under the order, Brian Andre, AS&MW and Regina Shaw must pay outstanding monetary penalties, which continue to accrue interest, and other miscellaneous fees, in the current amount of $258,582.08. AS&MW and Regina Shaw also must pay a $100 daily penalty, calculated from the time of default, in early 2008, on the OSHRC final order. AS&MW must provide OSHA weekly notification of all current jobs, and known future jobs, at least 72 hours prior to commencement of work for a period of three years. Meanwhile, AS&MW must provide “competent person” training to all people currently and subsequently designated as jobsite “competent persons,” prior to beginning any work, and provide the secretary records of such training.
If your organization needs assistance with employment, 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, Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years experience advising and assisting employers and others about these and other workforce management and compliance matters. 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 ICE, IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, writes and conducts training extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see hereor 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 hereor 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.
Regulations published by the Department of Labor today (January 14, 2010) offer employers the opportunity to know their deposit of employee contributions and other amounts withheld from wages or otherwise received from employees with a pension, profit-sharing, health, or other welfare benefit plan is timely for purposes of the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the prohibited transaction rules of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) by depositing those amounts with the plan within the seven day period specified in a new safe harbor included in the Regulations.
Certainty about the timeliness of these deposits is important, as mishandling of these employee contributions, participant loan repayments or other employee benefit plan assets frequently triggers judgments, fines and penalties against companies that sponsor employee benefit plans as well as owners, board members, or other members of management. See Mishandling Employee Benefit Obligations Creates Big Liabilities For Distressed Businesses & Their Leaders. Consequently, businesses sponsoring employee benefit programs and owners, officers, directors or other members of management with authority over or responsibility for the handling or application of amounts withheld or collected from employees as employee contributions or plan loans should make arrangements for these amounts to be properly handled and timely deposited with the appropriate employee benefit plan in accordance with these new plan asset regulations.
Title I of ERISA generally requires that employee benefit “plan assets” be held in trust, prudently handled and invested, used for the exclusive benefit of the plan and its participants, and otherwise used and administered in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. Meanwhile, the use of “plan assets” of certain employee benefit plans in a manner prohibited by the Code’s prohibited transaction rules also may trigger excise taxes and other penalties.
For purposes of both ERISA and the Code, Labor Department Regulation § 2510.3-102, specifies that amounts (other than union dues) that an employer withholds from wages or otherwise collects from employees as employee contributions or loan repayments to an employee benefit plan generally become plan assets subject to these fiduciary responsibility rules “as of the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets.” Since employers, business owners, members of management can risk exposure to damages, administrative penalties and/or excise taxes, knowing when amounts collected from employees are considered plan assets is a critical first step to managing these risks.
Unfortunately, the subjectivity of this standard leaves room for much uncertainty and debate about the precise deadline by which employee contributions, plan loans and other amounts from employees must be received by the plan. The subjectivity inherent in this standard leaves many employers uncertain about the adequacy of their compliance efforts and frequently fuels debate among plans, debtors, creditors, regulators or others about the when amounts earmarked to be withheld from employee wages cease to be assets of the debtor employer and become plan assets.
To mitigate debate and uncertainty about the timing of these events, Labor Department Regulation § 2510.3-102 as published in final form today includes a new “safe harbor” rule for plans with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year. Under the safe harbor, employee contributions, plan loans and other amounts withheld from wages or received from employees for payment to an employee benefit plan are treated as treated timely paid to the plan if deposited with the plan not later than the 7th business day following the day on which such amount is received by the employer (in the case of amounts that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer), or the 7th business day following the day on which such amount would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash (in the case of amounts withheld by an employer from a participant’s wages). While this safe harbor assures employers and others that withhold from wages or receive employee contributions or participant loan payments owing to less than 100 participant plans that their deposit will be considered timely if received by the plan within seven days, the plan asset regulations leave open that deposit with the plan more than 7 after receipt might still be considered timely deposit with the plan under certain circumstance.
Where deposit with the plan is not made within the seven-day period established by the safe harbor, the plan asset rules continue to leave room for great subjectivity in the determination of the deadline for deposit. In addition to the seven-day safe harbor, the plan asset regulations clearly establish bright-line deadlines after which the deposit of employee contribution or plan loan amounts always will be considered untimely. Thus, the plan asset rules provide that the deadline for depositing employee contributions and plan loans with the plan in no event ever extends beyond the applicable of the following dates (the “Latest Date”)
For pension plans, the 15th business day of the month following the month in which the employee contribution or participant loan repayment amounts are withheld or received by the employer;
With respect to a SIMPLE plan that involves SIMPLE IRAs the 30th calendar day following the month in which the participant contribution amounts would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash; and
For health and other welfare benefit plans, 90 days from the date on which the employee contribution is withheld or received by the employer.
In all other instances, the plan asset regulations leave open to uncertainty and debate when and if an employer’s deposit of employee contributions and plan loans more than seven-days after payroll deduction or receipt but before the Latest Date will qualify as timely for purposes of ERISA Title I or the Code’s prohibited transaction provisions.
Companies and owners, officers and directors of businesses that harm plans by failing to ensure that these amounts are timely deposited into an employee benefit plan or otherwise are involved in the mishandling of these funds frequently become subject to prosecution, damage awards, civil penalties and excise taxes. To mitigate potential exposure to these risks, businesses and leaders of businesses that withhold from wages or collect employee contributions or plan loan payments from employees should make arrangements to ensure that these amounts timely are deposited with the appropriate plans and otherwise handled appropriately in accordance with ERISA and the Code.
If your business or employee benefit plan needs assistance evaluating or responding to these or other employee benefit, or other employment, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance or other concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
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. She is experienced with assisting employers, insurers, administrators, and others to design and administer group health plans cost-effectively in accordance with these and other applicable federal regulations as well as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employee benefit, 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 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 hereor 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.
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.
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 Controlsdistributions. 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 hereor 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
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.
Employer and union sponsored group health plans, their sponsors and administrators must act quickly to comply with the extension and expansion of temporary “COBRA Subsidy Rules” for “assistance eligible individuals” originally added to the group health plan medical coverage continuation requirements of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (“COBRA”) by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“AARA”) last February.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326) signed into law by President Obama on December 19, 2009 extended the period that employer and union-sponsored group health plans must allow employees and members of their family that lose group health plan coverage due to an involuntary employment loss to continue their group medical coverage under the reduced premium and other temporary ARRA COBRA Subsidy Rules and lengthened the period during which an involuntary employment loss can qualify an otherwise COBRA-eligible employee or dependent as an assistance eligible individual.
Original COBRA Subsidy Rules
As originally enacted, the ARRA COBRA Subsidy Rules limited the COBRA premium that a COBRA-covered group health plan could charge a COBRA-eligible employee or dependent whose group health plan eligibility ended due to an involuntary employment loss between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 (“assistance eligible individual”) to 35% of the otherwise applicable COBRA premium (the “Reduced ARRA Premium”) for a period of up to 9 months (the “Subsidy Period”). ARRA dictated that employers sponsoring these group health plans must pay the remaining 65% of the COBRA premium (the “COBRA Subsidy”) for the assistance eligible individual during the Subsidy Period, but allowed employers to seek reimbursement by claiming a payroll tax credit for these COBRA Subsidy payments by complying with applicable IRS procedures. AARA also mandated that group health plans offering a choice of coverage options offer assistance eligible individuals the option to switch coverage options and required group health plans to notify assistance eligible individuals of the special COBRA Subsidy Rules.
H.R. 3326 COBRA Subsidy Rules Extension
As signed into law on December 19, 2009, H.R. 3326:
Extends the period during which an involuntary employment loss can qualify an otherwise COBRA-eligible employee or dependent as an assistance eligible individual for an additional two months (from December 31, 2009 to February 28, 2010);
Adds an additional six months (from 9 to 15 months) the Subsidy Period during which an assistance eligible individual experiencing an involuntary loss of employment between September 1, 2008 and February 28, 2010 is entitled to pay the Reduced AARA Premium;
Requires group health plans to notify assistance eligible individuals of the extension; and
Requires group health plans to allow additional time for assistance eligible individuals who had exhausted their original 9-month Subsidy Period before H.R. 3326 extended the Subsidy Period to 15 months to pay the Reduced AARA Premium related to the extension.
Group health plans, their employer or union sponsors, administrators, insurers and service providers will need to act quickly to prepare and provider required updated notifications to assistance eligible individuals of these extended eligibility periods and their resulting rights, and otherwise update their plan documents, procedures, and COBRA notifications in light of these new rules.
If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to these or other employment, health or other employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance or other concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. The author of the “Health Plan Eligibility Toolkit,” Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, insurers, administrators, and others to design and administer group health plans cost-effectively in accordance with COBRA and other applicable federal regulations 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.. 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 hereor 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.
Business owners, executives, board members, and other business leaders of companies facing financial challenges should heed a mounting series of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders, judgments and prosecutions as strong reminders of the potential personal risk they may face if their health, 401(k) or other employee benefit programs are not appropriately funded and administered as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).
Businesses leaders struggling to deal with economic setbacks frequently may be tempted to use employee benefit plan contributions or funds for added liquidity or otherwise fail to take appropriate steps to protect and timely deposit plan contributions or other plan assets. A long and ever-mounting series of decisions demonstrates the risks of yielding to these temptations for businesses that sponsor these plans and the business leaders that make these decisions.
EBSA Prosecutes Businesses & Executives That Bungle ERISA Obligations
The mishandling of employee benefit obligations by financially distressed companies during the ongoing economic downturn is fueling an increase in Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) enforcement actions against distressed or bankrupt companies and their officers or directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties or other mishandling of medical, 401(k) or other pension, and other employee benefit programs sponsored by their financially distressed companies.
EBSA enforcement activities during 2009 continue to 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. A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record 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.
EBSA reports enforcing $1.3 billion in recoveries related to pension, 401(k), health and other benefits during fiscal year 2009. EBSA has filed numerous lawsuits to compel distressed companies and/or members of their management to pay restitution or other damages for alleged breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties, to appoint independent fiduciaries, or both for plans sponsored by bankrupt or financially distressed companies.
Recent settlements and judgments obtained by the Labor Department and through private litigation document that officers and other members of management participating, or possessing authority to influence, the handling of heath, 401(k) and other pension, or other employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA may be exposed to personal liability if these benefit programs are not maintained and administered appropriately. This risk is particularly grave when the sponsoring company becomes financially distressed or goes bankrupt, as the handling of employee benefit and other responsibilities becomes particularly disrupted and the lack of company liquidity often leaves executives and service providers as the only or best source of recovery for government officials and private plaintiffs.
Executives Ordered To Pay To Make Things Right
In the December 2, 2009 decision in Solis v. Struthers Industries Inc., for instance, a federal district judge ordered business leader Jomey B. Ethridge liable to pay $303,084.61 to restore assets belonging to the 401(k) plan of bankrupt Struthers Industries in an ERISA fiduciary responsibility action filed by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Filed by the EBSA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Struthers Industries lawsuit alleged that Ethridge and Struthers Industries allowed employee contributions to be used for purposes other than providing benefits resulting in losses of $310,084.57. According to court documents, Struthers Industries designed and built heat transfer and pressure vessels at its Gulfport facility. In 2001, its 401(k) plan had 278 participants and assets totaling $8,279,083. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003, and its assets were auctioned off in 2005. An independent fiduciary was appointed by the court in 2007 to manage the plan’s assets. The ordered Ethridge personally to pay $303,084.61 in restitution to the plan for his involvement in the mishandling of the plan’s assets. The order also bars Ethridge from acting as a benefit plan fiduciary in the future.
The Struthers Industries decision comes on the heels of EBSA’s success in Solis v. T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. last month in recovering more than $89,000 from business owners and operators found to have breached fiduciary duties to the participants of the T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. Profit Sharing Plan by improperly loaning plan assets to he plan sponsor and an affiliated company. The Labor Department sued T.E. Corcoran Co. and its owners, John F. Corcoran and Thomas E. Corcoran Jr., alleging that the company and its owners caused the plan to lend money to the two companies at below market interest rates, without terms of payment and without documentation in violation of ERISA. The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also named as a defendant Coran Development Co. Inc., a company co-owned by the Corcorans. T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. was the sponsor and administrator of the plan, while John and Thomas Corcoran were trustees of the plan, making all three fiduciaries and parties in interest with respect to the plan. ERISA specifically prohibits the use of employee benefit plan funds to benefit parties in interest.
The Corcoran judgment requires that the plan account balances of defendants John F. Corcoran and Thomas E. Corcoran Jr. be offset in the amount of $89,273 plus interest to be allocated to the accounts of the other plan participants. The offset will make whole all of the accounts of the non-trustee participants. In addition, the court order appoints an independent trustee to oversee the final distribution of the plan’s assets and the proper termination of the plan, requires the defendants to cooperate fully with the independent trustee in this process, and then prohibits them from serving as fiduciaries to any ERISA-covered plan for 10 years.
A complex maze of ERISA, tax and other rules make the establishment, administration and termination of employee benefit plans a complicated matter. When the company sponsoring a plan goes bankrupt or becomes distressed, the rules, as well as the circumstances can make the administration of these responsibilities a powder keg of liability for all involved. Companies and other individuals that in name or in function possess or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the maintenance, administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA frequently are found to be accountable for complying with the high standards required by ERISA for carrying out these duties based on their functional ability to exercise discretion over these matters, whether or not they have been named as fiduciaries formally.
Despite these well-document fiduciary exposures and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Labor Department and private plaintiffs, many companies and their business leaders fail to appreciate the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment and administration of employee benefit plans. Frequently, companies sponsoring their employee benefit plans and their executives mistakenly assume that they can rely upon vendors and advisors to ensure that their programs are appropriately established the establishment and maintenance of these arrangements with limited review or oversight by the sponsoring company or its management team.
In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that the functional definition that ERISA uses to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions relating to the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans.
For this reason, 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.
If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to these or other employment, health or other employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance or other 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 hereor 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.
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
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 hereor registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates you may have missed 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.
Get a peek at the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) regulatory plans for 2010 on Monday, December 10, 2009.
On Monday, Dec. 7, the DOL will release its annual regulatory agenda for the upcoming year. The same day, it also will video cast remarks by Secretary Hilda L. Solis outlining the department’s regulatory agenda beginning at 10 a.m. EST. From 2 to 3 p.m. EST Ssecretary Solis alsowill host a live Web chat open to the public to discuss the contents of the agenda. Questions may be submitted in advance of the chat following the video presentation. Register to join the chat on Mondayhere.
If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending 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
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 hereor registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates you may have missed 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.
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 Rulethat 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;
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.
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)
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 hereto 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 hereor 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.
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
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 hereor registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates you may have missed 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.
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.
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
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 hereor registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates you may have missed 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.
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
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 hereor registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates you may have missed 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.
S.1796, America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 Reflects Chairman’s Response To House’s Passage of HR 3962 & Other Feedback
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) today (November 19, 2009) introduced his latest health care reform proposal, the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (S.1796). Chairman Baucus’ introduction of S. 1796 follows the November 7, 2009 passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of the massive health care reform proposal sponsored by Representative John Dingell (D-MI) and supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR. 3962).
Totaling 1504 pages in length, S.1796 proposes a lengthy and complex array of reforms to the U.S. health care coverage and delivery system, which would affect virtually each U.S. employer, health care provider, payer, and resident. As with the provisions of HR. 3962 and other versions of health care reform, the reforms outlined in the provisions of S.1796 include complexities and nuances which may not be apparent in partisan or non-partisan discussions or summaries of its goals or purposes. Consequently, individuals or businesses concerned about the proposed reforms are encouraged to begin and base their review and analysis on the actual text of S.1796, a copy of which as introduced is available for review here.
The continuing emphasis of President Obama and other members of the Democratic Party Leadership in Congress on the passage of health care reform means that Senator Baucus and other Democratic Leaders in Congress are likely to continue to make passage of health care reform a priority. U.S. businesses and individuals concerned about the proposed reforms should carefully review both the Senate and House bills and act quickly to provide their input on any matters of special interest and concern.
Selected Health Coverage Reform Highlights
Among other things, S.1796, as introduced, would enact sweeping health insurance coverage reforms that would create new obligations for employers, insurers, and individual workers. In this respect, S.1796, among other things would:
Amend the Social Security Act (SSA) to add a new title XXII (Health Insurance Coverage) to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable and essential health benefits coverage.
Require all health benefits plans offered to individuals and employers in the individual and small group market to be qualified health benefits plans (QHBPs).
Amend the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow tax credits related to the purchase of health insurance through the state exchanges; and (2) impose an excise tax on individuals without essential health benefits coverage and on employers who fail to meet health insurance coverage requirements with respect to their full-time employees.
Prohibit QHBP from excluding coverage for preexisting conditions, or otherwise limiting or conditioning coverage based on any health status-related factors.
Require QHBPs to offer coverage in the individual and small group markets on a guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal basis.
Amend the cafeteria plan rules of Internal Revenue Code § 125 to, among other things, require that in order for a health flexible spending arrangement (HFSA) to qualify as a qualified benefit eligible to be offered under a cafeteria plan, the cafeteria plan must limit the maximum salary reduction contribution per employee per taxable year to $2,500 beginning in 2011.
Increase the threshold for the itemized income tax deduction for medical expenses.
Require states to: (1) establish rating areas; (2) adopt a specified risk adjustment model; and (3) establish transitional reinsurance programs for individual markets.
Require QHBP offerors in the individual and small group markets to consider all enrollees in a plan to be members of a single risk pool.
Require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish: (1) risk corridors for certain plan years; (2) high risk pools for individuals with preexisting conditions; (3) a temporary reinsurance program for retirees covered by employer-based plans; and (4) a program under which a state establishes one or more QHBPs to provide at least an essential benefits package to eligible individuals in lieu of offering coverage through an exchange.
Entitle a qualified individual to the choice to enroll or not to enroll in a QHBP offered through an exchange covering the individual’s state as well as QHBPs in the individual market while at the same time requiring that such individuals to be U.S. citizens or lawful residents.
Require each state to establish: (1) an exchange designed to facilitate enrollment in QHBPs in the individual market; and (2) a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange designed to assist qualified small employers in facilitating the enrollment of their employees in QHBPs in either the individual or the small group market.
Direct the Secretary to: (1) establish a system allowing state residents to participate in state health subsidy programs; and (2) study methods exchange QHBPs can employ to encourage health care providers to make increased meaningful use of electronic health records.
Dictate the mandated contents of an essential health benefit benefits package, including little or no cost-sharing, no annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and preventive services.
Amend the Internal Revenue Code to codify and revise the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) wellness program regulations.
Amend the Internal Revenue Code to codify and revise the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) wellness program regulations.
With regard to abortions: (1) declare that the Act does not require health care benefits plans to provide coverage for abortions; prohibit QHBPs from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions; (3) continues application of state and federal laws regarding abortion; (4) prohibit the use of premium credits and cost-sharing subsidies for QHBPs covering abortion services for which federal funding is prohibited; (5) require the plan offeror to determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of abortion services for which federal funding is prohibited or is allowed; and (6) require the Secretary to assure that at least one QHBP covers abortion services for which federal funding is prohibited or allowed; and at least one QHBP that does not cover abortion services for which federal funding is allowed.
Other Selected Health Care System, Reimbursement & Other Reform Highlights
S.1796 also would expand and modify existing Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and other federal health care programs and enact a host of other new rules and requirements affecting health care providers, drug companies and other participants in the U.S. health care system. Other proposed reforms include provisions that would:
Require the President to: (1) certify annually in the President’s Budget whether or not the provisions in this Act will increase the budget deficit in the coming fiscal year; and (2) instruct the HHS Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury to make required reductions in exchange credits and subsidies.
Establish a new mandatory eligibility category under SSA title XIX (Medicaid) for all non-elderly, nonpregnant individuals who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid.
Revise Medicaid benefits.
Rescind funds available in the Medicaid Improvement Fund for FY2014-2018.
Make appropriations for Aging and Disability Resource Center initiatives.
Increase the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for states to offer home and community-based services as a long-term care (LTC) alternative to nursing homes.
Create a Community First Choice Option.
Add a new optional categorically needy eligibility group to Medicaid for individuals: (1) with income that exceeds 133% of the poverty line; and (2) certain other individuals, but only for benefits limited to family planning services and supplies.
Direct the Secretary to establish a grants program to support school-based health centers.
Remove smoking cessation drugs, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines from Medicaid’s excluded drug list.
Revise requirements for Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.
Direct the Secretary to establish a Federal Coordinated Health Care Office within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMMS).
Direct the Secretary to establish a Medicaid Quality Measurement Program.
Revise requirements for the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) under SSA title XXI, Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Set forth special rules relating to American Indians and Alaska Indians.
Require the Secretary to establish procedures for sharing data collected under a federal health care program on race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, type of disability, and related measures and data analyses.
Amend SSA title V with respect to the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) block grant program.
Provide funding for abstinence education.
Incorporate reforms originally proposed under the Elder Justice Act of 2009 pursuant to which amendments would be made to the provisions of SSA title XX relating to Block Grants to States for Social Services with respect to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and their prevention.
Establish within the Office of the Secretary an Elder Justice Coordinating Council.
Direct the Secretary to establish a hospital value-based purchasing program under Medicare.
Extend the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting Initiative program (PQRI) incentive payments beyond 2010.
Modify the Physician Feedback Program.
Require the Secretary to develop a plan to implement a Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).
Amend SSA title XVIII (Medicare) to direct the Secretary to establish a national strategy to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health.
Direct the President to convene an Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality.
Amend the General Provisions of SSA title XI to provide for the establishment of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMMS.
Amend SSA title XVIII to direct the Secretary to establish a shared savings program that promotes accountability for a patient population and coordinates items and services under Medicare parts A (Hospital Insurance) and B (Supplementary Medical Insurance).
Create a Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Direct the Secretary to establish a Community-Based Care Transitions Program.
Revise requirements with respect to residents in teaching hospitals.
Increase the Medicare physician payment update.
Direct the Secretary to establish a Working Group on Access to Emergency Medical Care.
Extend the Medicare-Dependent Hospital Program.
Amend the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 with respect to the hospital wage index.
Establish a Medicare prescription drug discount program for brand-name drugs for beneficiaries who enroll in Medicare part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program) and have drug spending that falls into the coverage gap.
Establish an independent Medicare Commission to reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.
Amend SSA title XI to add a new part D, Comparative Effectiveness Research, under which would be established a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Establish in the Department of Treasury the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund.
Establish a nationwide program for national and state background checks on direct patient access employees of long term care facilities and providers.
Direct the Secretary to establish new procedures for screening providers of medical or other items or services and suppliers under the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
Direct the Secretary to establish a self-referral disclosure protocol to enable health care service providers and suppliers to disclose violations.
Requires the Secretary to expand the number of areas included in Round Two of the durable medical equipment (DME) competitive bidding program.
Extend the period for collection of overpayments due to fraud.
Amend the Internal Revenue Code with respect to: (1) an excise tax on the excess benefit of high cost employer-sponsored health coverage; (2) distributions from health savings accounts for drugs and insulin that are prescribed drugs and insulin only; (3) a limitation on salary reduction contributions by employers to a health flexible spending arrangement; (4) expanded information reporting requirements; (5) additional qualifying requirements for charitable hospital organizations; and (6) a qualifying therapeutic discovery project tax credit.
Impose annual fees on: (1) manufacturers and importers of branded prescription pharmaceuticals or of medical devices; and (2) health insurance providers.
Prescribe a special rule to limit excessive remuneration by certain health insurance providers.
Exclude from an individual’s gross income the value of any qualified Indian health care benefit.
Monitoring & Responding To Health Care Reform Proposals
As was the case with HR. 3962, members of the Senate are likely to debate and weigh a variety of amendments and refinements to the provisions of S.1796 as it deliberates its enactment. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about health care reform proposals and other related legislative, regulatory, and enforcement developments, please:
Register for this resource at the link above;
Join the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy group at linkedin.com to share information and input and join in other dialogue with others concerned about health care reform;
Share your input by communicating with key members of Congress on committees responsible for this legislation and your elected officials directly and by actively participating in and contributing to other like-minded groups; and
Be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here.
If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to health care or other legislative or regulatory reforms, or any 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/Employee Benefits Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years of experience advising and assisting business, government and other clients to evaluate and respond to health care, pension reform, workforce and other proposed or adopted changes in federal or state health care, employee benefit, employment, tax and other federal and state laws. A member of the leadership council of the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Chair of the ABA Real Property, Probate & Trust Section and Employee Benefits & Compensation Group and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Ms. Stamer is highly regarded legal advisor, policy advocate, author and speaker recognized both nationally and internationally for her more than 20 years of work assisting U.S. public and private employers, health care providers, health insurers, and a broad range of other clients to respond to these and other health care, employee benefit and workforce public policy, regulatory and compliance and risk management concerns within the U.S. as well as internationally. Her work includes extensive involvement providing input and assistance about health care, workforce, pensions and social security and other reforms domestically and internationally. In addition to her continuous involvement in U.S. health care, pensions and savings, and workforce policy matters, Ms. Stamer has served as an advisor on these matters internationally. As part of this work, she served as a lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its social security reform as well as has provided input on ethics, medical tourism, workforce and other reforms internationally.
In addition to her extensive work on health and other employee benefit matters, Ms. Stamer also is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has continuously has advised and represented employers and others on labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters throughout her career. 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 is a widely published author and popular speaker on health plan and other human resources, employee benefits and internal controls issues. Her work has been featured and published by the American Bar Association, BNA, SHRM, World At Work, Employee Benefit News and the American Health Lawyers Association. Her insights on human resources risk management matters have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, Managed Care Executive, HealthLeaders, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News and the Dallas Morning News.
If your organization needs assistance with monitoring, assessing, or responding to these or other health care, employee benefit or human resources reforms, please contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail here, or by calling (214) 270-2402. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here. 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 hereor 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.
Rising business failures, constricting budgets, employment losses and other business and workforce dislocations associated with the recent economic downturn are adding new urgency to efforts by U.S. and international leaders to act to mitigate threats to the security of worker pensions.
In response to these concerns, the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), the United Kingdom’s The Pensions Regulator and Pension Protection Fund recently have reached an information sharing agreement intended to help the agencies in both countries protect retirement benefits earned by workers and retirees on both sides of the Atlantic. Meanwhile, businesses that sponsoring defined benefit pension plans now are required to comply with newly released final Internal Revenue Service regulations that increase minimum contributions required by many sponsors, and impose other new mandates designed to accelerate plan funding and otherwise promote greater security of these benefit programs in an economically challenged business environment.
Under a Memorandum of Understanding, signed on November 4, 2009, the three agencies will share any unrestricted information that advances the security of defined benefit plans sponsored by private sector companies. Confidential financial information from those companies will not be shared. While the agreement facilitates broad access to data, intelligence, and other records, it is not legally binding. Additionally, the agencies are not compelled to lend assistance to each other, especially if legal proceedings are underway, and such assistance would be contrary to the interests of either country. The agreement can be canceled at any time by any party.
The Pensions Regulator oversees private sector defined benefit plans in the UK and is charged with protecting the retirement benefits of plan members. The Regulator is also charged with reducing the risk of claims for compensation from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The PPF was created to pay compensation to members of eligible defined benefit pension plans when the plan’s sponsor was unable to pay benefits.
The PBGC is a federal corporation created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It currently guarantees payment of basic pension benefits earned by 44 million American workers and retirees participating in over 29,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans. The agency receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed largely by insurance premiums paid by companies that sponsor pension plans and by investment returns.
The Memorandum of Understanding is one of a variety of actions that the U.S. regulators are taking as part of their efforts to shore up the security of private retirement benefits and funding. On October 15, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service published final regulations regarding the “Measurement of Assets and Liabilities for Pension Funding Purposes; Benefit Restrictions for Underfunded Pension Plans” construing the amended single employer defined benefit plan minimum funding rules in Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) §§ 430(d), 430(f), 430(g), 430(h)(2), 430(i), and 436, added to the Code by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA ’06), Public Law 109-280 (120 Stat. 780) taking into account subsequent amendments made by the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA ’08), Public Law 110-458 (122 Stat. 5092). These new final regulations implement new federal rules that accelerate the time within which employers are required to fund defined benefit retirement benefit commitments made in single employer defined benefit pension plans and impose other complicated new requirements intended to improve the funding and security of these programs. As implementation of these new rules proceeds, the PBGC is working to respond to the growing wave defined benefit pension plans whose plan sponsors have already gone bankrupt or otherwise have proven unable to meet already existing funding obligations.
If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating or complying these minimum funding rules or other employee benefit, employment, compensation, 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 has more than 20 years experience advising and representing employers, plan sponsors and fiduciaries, and others about these and other related workforce, benefits, compensation and compliance matters. 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 hereor registering to participate in the distribution of 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 here.
September 10, 2009 – Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time Participate In Person or Via Remote!
Health care providers, health plans, health clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) must comply with the new “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) by September 23, 2009.
Catch up on what the Breach Rule means for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Thursday, September 10, 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 information about registering for this program or other questions here,
The Breach Rule requires Covered Entities to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information. Just published August 24th, 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). The briefing will cover:
Who must comply, health plans, employers, others?
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 and Tarski LLP Health Care & Employee Benefits Practice Leader and 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. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, 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 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, seehere.
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 find this 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.
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.net.
Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “in favor of broad coverage of individuals” do not apply to actions taken before effective date of the ADAAA, January 1, 2009, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. While the holding provides some comfort for employers in relation to pre-January 1, 2009 actions, employers need to take appropriate steps to mitigate disability claim risks for actions on or after the January 1, 2009 effective date of the ADAAA.
As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:
Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.
In Lytes v. DC Water and Sewer Authority, D.C. Cir. No. 08-7002 (July 21, 2009), the D.C. Court of Appeals considered and rejected the retroactivity argument made by Lytes in his appeal from a trial court’s finding that he was not disabled under the ADA. As the ADAAA took effect while his action was pending, Lytes sought to convince the Appeals Court to apply the ADAAA amended definition retroactively. Contending that the ADAAA amendment merely clarified the existing law under the ADA, Lytes argued that the Court should apply the broader definition of disability when considering the legality of his termination from employment in 2004.
Rejecting Lytes’ retroactivity argument, the Court of Appeals ruled that the ADAAA amendment of the definition of “disability” under the ADA applies only on a prospective basis based on its finding that Congress had clearly provided that the ADAAA amendments only would apply to post-December 31, 2008 actions. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s finding that Lytes termination in 2004 did not violate the ADA as then effective as his lack of disabled status under the then-applicable definition of disability meant he was not entitled to accommodation.
In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments.
Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).
While the Lytes decision indicates that businesses will not be required to defend pre-2009 actions under the amended disability standards enacted by the ADAAA, businesses should prepare to meet new challenges in defending ADA claims arising from actions taken after December 31, 2008. The ADAAA amendments make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes.
To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.
Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.
Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.
As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. 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. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.
These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.
If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 214.270.2402.
About The Author
Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.
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 in this electronic Solutions Law publication 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.
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.
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.
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.
Employers and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and service providers need to move quickly to prepare to comply with “breach notification” regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) yesterday (August 19, 2009). The new data breach regulations will require health plans, as well as health care providers, business associates and other covered entities (Covered Entities) under the personal health information privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information. Scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009, the new breach notification regulations are part of a series of new rules that implement new electronic personal health information data security and data breach notification 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). Covered entities must begin complying with the new rules no later than September 24, 2009.
Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP Health Practice leader Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will conduct a briefing on these new protected health information data security and data breach rules on Thursday, September 10, 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 more information, e-mail here.
HITECH Act Data Breach and Unsecured PHI Rules
The new data breach notification rules are part of a series of recent HIPAA enacted under the HITECH Act to strengthen the federal rules requiring HIPAA covered entities to safeguard electronic and certain other protected health information. Enhanced data security and data breach rules added as part of these HITECH Act amendments obligate covered entities and business associates to provide certain notifications following a breach of “unsecured” “protected health information” within the meaning of HIPAA, as amended. “Unsecured protected health information” is defined as protected health information that is not secured through the use of a technology or methodology specified by the HHS Secretary.
The new data breach regulations implement the HITECH Act requirement that Covered Entities and their business associates notify affected individuals, the Secretary of HHS, and in some cases, the media, of a breach and the form, manner, and timing of that notification. 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. HHS and the Federal Trade Commission previously issued certain initial guidance concerning the HITECH Act standards for determining when electronic personal health information qualifies as secure. To help further define when electronic health information is treated as “unsecured” and therefore subject to the breach notification requirements, the data breach rules also update and clarify the previously issued existing HHS guidance specifying encryption and destruction as the technologies and methodologies that render protected health information unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals published earlier this year by HHS to for purposes of determining when protected health information will be considered “unsecured” for purposes of the HITECH Act data breach rules. Entities subject to the HHS and FTC regulations that secure health information as specified by the guidance through encryption or destruction are relieved from having to notify in the event of a breach of such information.
The HHS interim final regulations are effective September 24, 2009, which is the date 30 days after the date they will be published on the Federal Register and include a 60-day public comment period. To review the interim final data breach regulations, see here. To review the HITECH Act Breach Notification Guidance and Request for Information, see here.
For More Information
The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Labor and Employment and Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, managed care providers and other health and insurance industry clients about HIPAA and other privacy and data security matters, as well as a diverse range of health care, employment, and emplyee benefit policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns.
Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Real Property, Trusts & Estates Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, past chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Martindale Hubble AV-rated and recognized in International Who’s Who of Professionals, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health care providers, health care payers and administrators, employers, governments and others about health care, insurance, human resources, privacy and data security, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer also writes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters. She currently serves as 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. Examples of her other works include “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 others. Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service Privacy Report, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a various 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 proposed health care or other regulatory reforms or with other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270-2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner.
We also encourage you and others to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin, registering to receive these updates here.
Other Helpful Resources & Other Information
We hope that this information is useful to you. 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 Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register to receive this Solutions Law Press Health Care Updatehere and 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.
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.
As the health care reform policy debate continues, Americans increasingly are asking where to read the text of the health care reform legislation that members of Congress are debating and how to share their input.
While numerous alternatives presently are pending before Congress, much of recent discussion and debate has focused around one of the following bills:
H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, introduced in the House by Rep Dingell, John D. on July 14, 2009 the text of which as originally introduced may be reviewed here. It has been the focus of significant mark up negotiation through out July before the following House Energy and Commerce, House Ways & Means, and House Education & Labor Committees; and
S. __, the Affordable Health Choices Act approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the text of which as approved may be reviewed here.
When reviewing these bills, Americans should keep in mind that members of Congress are engaged in ongoing negotiations about the specific provisions and language of these bills, as well as other legislation. Official developments generally may be monitored here.
Many American businesses and individuals also are asking about how and where to share their views, how to organize others to do the same and other questions about getting the word out. Here a some quick ideas. We encourage others to share.
The Coalition For Patient Empowerment and the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform linkedin group are two one of many resources where individuals are sharing information about these matters.
Concerned individuals should share their views both by faxing, e-mailing or telephoning key decisionmakers in Congress, as well as joining and participating in activities of other individuals and groups that share their concerns. Contact and get involved with this and other groups that share your concerns.
Contact the offices of your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate as well as other members of Congress that support your views and ask them about other groups and ways that you can share your views. They will welcome your input and involvement.
If you are aware of or involved in a group that shares your views, we encourage you to share it on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform linkedin group. If you or others are planning a town hall or other health care reform meeting, use this or other linked in groups to spread the word.
If you are interested in volunteering to plan events in your region, let us know.
We also encourage you and others to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin, and registering to receive these updates here.
When communicating, consider targeting your messages to members of Congress whose votes are likely to be impacted by your communications.
For instance, with both the House and Senate in the majority in Congress, Democrats generally have greater control over what legislation moves forward. The Democratic Leadership of the House and Sentate generally can get legislation passed by their members as long as they can maintain consensus among the members of their parties. In connection with the health care reform proposals, however, cost and other considerations have made maintaining a consensus more difficult than on other legislation. Certain fiscally moderate members of the Democratic Party have expressed concern about the expense and other aspects of their Leadership proposed health care reform proposals. These Democrats in Congress generally the members of Congress whose votes are most likely to be impacted by public input and feedback generally and from voters in their districts and contributors specifically.
The fiscal conservatism of Blue Dog Democrats makes them more likely to listen to concerns about the cost and other concerns relating to the health care reform bills touted by the Democrat Leadership in the House and Senate. In fact, many Blue Dog Democrats already are speaking out about their concerns about the cost and other aspects of the Bill.
Contact from voters and contributors in their districts and others could make a major difference in the ability that the House Democrat Leadership needs to pass their Bill. Immediately contacting these members and getting others – particularly voters and contributors in the districts that elect these members – is one of the most important steps that concerned Americans can do to position their concerns to be heard.
For most concerned voters, telephone or fax contact is the best means to convey these messages. To minimize spam, most members only accept e-mail submitted through their website links. Security concerns can delay receipt of written correspondence for weeks.
For persons interested in making their voices heard and sharing information with others who wish to do the same, the following contact information may be of interest:
The number of the Capital Switchboard is 202-224-3121.
The Blue Dog Leadership Team and there telephone and fax numbers are:
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration, Telephone: 202.225.2801 , Fax: 202.225.5823
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy,Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-6866
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip, Telephone: 202-225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422
The Blue Dog Members and their telephone numbers are :
Altmire, Jason (PA-04),(202)225-2565
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24), (202)225-3665
Baca, Joe (CA-43),(202)225-6161
Barrow, John (GA-12), (202) 225-2823
Berry, Marion (AR-01), (202) 225-4076
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02), (202) 225-3631
Boren, Dan (OK-02), (202) 225-2701
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03), (202) 225-3806
Boyd, Allen (FL-02), (202) 225-5235
Bright, Bobby (AL-02), (202) 225-2901
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18), (202) 225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10), (202) 225-3731
Chandler, Ben (KY-06), (202) 225-4706
Childers, Travis (MS-01), (202) 225-4306
Cooper, Jim (TN 5th), (202) 225-4311
Costa, Jim (CA 20th), (202) 225-3341
Cuellar, Henry (TX 28th), (202) 225-1640
Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. (PA 3rd), (202) 225-5406
Davis, Lincoln (TN 4th),(202) 225-6831
Donnelly, Joe (IN 2nd), (202) 225-3915
Ellsworth, Brad (IN 8th), (202) 225-4636
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ 8th), (202) 225-2542
Gordon, Bart (TN 6th), (202) 225-4231
Griffith, Parker (AL 5th), (202) 225-4801
Harman, Jane (CA 36th), (202) 225-8220
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD At Large), (202) 225-2801
Hill, Baron P. (IN 9th), (202) 225-5315
Holden, Tim (PA 17th), (202) 225-5546
Kratovil, Frank Jr. (MD 1st), (202) 225-5311
McIntyre, Mike (NC 7th), (202) 225-2731
Marshall, Jim (GA 8th), (202) 225-6531
Matheson, Jim (UT 2nd), (202) 225-3011
Melancon, Charlie (LA 3rd), (202) 225-4031
Michaud, Michael H. (ME 2nd), (202) 225-6306
Minnick, Walt (ID 1st), (202) 225-6611
Mitchell, Harry E. (AZ 5th), (202) 225-2190
Moore, Dennis (KS 3rd), (202) 225-2865
Murphy, Patrick J. (PA 8th), (202) 225-4276
Nye, Glenn C. (VA 2nd), (202) 225-4215
Peterson, Collin C. (MN 7th), (202) 225-2165
Pomeroy, Earl (ND At Large), (202) 225-2611
Ross, Mike (AR 4th), (202) 225-3772
Salazar, John T. (CO 3rd), (202) 225-4761
Sanchez, Loretta (CA 47th), (202) 225-2965
Schiff, Adam B. (CA 29th), (202) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA 13th), (202) 225-2939
Shuler, Heath (NC 11th), (202) 225-6401
Space, Zachary T. (OH 18th), (202) 225-6265
Tanner, John S. (TN 8th), (202) 225-4714
Taylor, Gene (MS 4th), (202) 225-5772
Thompson, Mike (CA 1st), (202) 225-3311
Wilson, Charles (OH-06), (202) 225-5705
You and others also are invited to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by:
Joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin and registering to receive these updates here; and
E-mailing Cstamer@cttlegal.com to participate in the Coalition for Patient Empowerment.
Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help
If your business needs assistance monitoring or providing input on health care reform or other human resources, employee benefit or compensation legislation or regulations, or auditing, updating or defending its health or other employee benefit, human resources, or compensation arrangements, or responding to employee benefits, employment or compensation related 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 employer and employee benefit plan sponsors, administrators and others about labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising and defending these and other clients in 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, Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit Plans and Other Compensation Group, a 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 has extensive experience with health and retirement, work force and other employee benefit and employment matters. She is nationally and internationally known for her innovative work with employers, associations, churches, insurers and others to develop health benefit, onsight medical, wellness and other employee benefit and employment arrangements, as well as her involvement in health care, pension and other public policy advocacy.
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.
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.
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 Controlsdistributions. 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.
Amid soaring health care costs and tightening corporate budgets, employers and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrations now also must update their group health plan eligibility and enrollment practices to comply with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Stimulus Bill”), COBRA subsidy mandates, HIPAA special enrollment rule amendments and a host of other changes to federal eligibility mandates that already have or will take effect this year. Meanwhile, employers must keep a careful watch on Congress as it considers enacting sweeping health care reforms that are likely to place more obligations on employers.
Health plan eligibility design and administration plays a critical role in controlling health benefit costs and is a leading and growing source of health plan legal risk for employers, fiduciaries and administrators. Understanding and properly managing these concerns is imperative for employers and others sponsoring or administering these programs.
Stamer Discusses Health Plan Eligibility Rules June 23
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will explain newly effective COBRA Subsidy Rules, genetic information nondiscrimination rules and other recent and impending changes to federal health plan eligibility mandates will be explained on June 23, 2009 during a 2009 Health Plan Eligibility Update briefing hosted by the Dallas Human Resources Management Association including:
Cynthia Stamer will explain to attendees what they need to know and do about:
New Stimulus Bill COBRA Subsidy Rules and other special COBRA rules that took effect on February 17
New GINA group health plan information scheduled to take place in 2009
Changes to HIPAA special enrollment and nondiscrimination rules
Implications for group health plans based on recent changes to FMLA and USERRA regulations
Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP nondiscrimination rules
Impending college student continuation mandates
And more….
Get details or register on line hereor by telephoning Dallas Human Resources Management Association at 214-631-8775.
Stamer’s Health Plan Experience Extensive
The immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association’s Managed Care & Insurance Section, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a highly regarded legal advisor, author and speaker recognized both nationally and internationally for her expertise in the areas of health benefits and other human resource compliance matters. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” recently joined Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP as the Chair of its Labor & Employment and Health Care Practices April 1, 2009.
The Managing Editor of Solutions Law Press and an Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for Employee Benefit News and other publications, Ms. Stamer is a widely published author and popular speaker. In addition to hundreds of publications on health plan and other human resources, employee benefit and internal controls issues, Ms. Stamer is the author of the “Health Plan Eligibility Toolkit.” Her work has been featured and published by the American Bar Association, BNA, SHRM, World At Work, Employee Benefit News and the American Health Lawyers Association. Her insights on human resources risk management matters have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, Managed Care Executive, HealthLeaders, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News and the Dallas Morning News.
Ms. Stamer also serves in a number of professional leadership roles including the leadership council of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice Chair of the ABA Real Property, Probate & Trust Section and Employee Benefits & Compensation Group.
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other health plan and other employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail here, or by calling (214) 270-2402. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here, For more information and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website.
We hope that this information is useful to you. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here, For more information and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website.
You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.
Virtually all employers will be require to allow employees provide up to 56 hours of paid if Congress passes the “Healthy Families Act” (H.R. 2460) introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro with the support of 101 co-sponsors on May 18, 2009. Given the significant number of co-sponsors already on record as supporting the legislation, employers concerned about the proposed legislation need to act quickly to communicate their concerns to Congress.
If enacted as currently introduced, H.R. 2460 both would significantly expand the number of employers required by federal law to provide sick leave and overlay a mandate to provide paid sick leave in addition to the existing unpaid leave mandates currently applicable under the Family and Medical Leave Act to employers of more than 50 employees.
As proposed, H.R. 2460 would require all employers of 15 or more employees:
To accrue at least 1 hour of paid sick time (up to a maximum of 56 hours per calendar year) for every 30 hours worked by each employee from beginning with the first day of employment of the employee. Exempt employees generally would be assumed to work 40 hours in each workweek for purposes of calculating accrued sick leave;
Guarantee employees the right to begin using accrued paid sick time for one of the purposes qualifying for sick leave under H.R. 2460 beginning with the 60th calendar day following commencement of the employee’s employment and thereafter as he accrues additional paid sick time;
To allow employees to carry over earned but unused paid sick time from one calendar year to the next except under certain limited conditions; and
To reinstate accrued but unused leave for any employee rehired within 12 months after separating from employment and continue to recognize additional paid sick time accruals beginning with the recommencement of employment with the employer.
The purposes that H.R. 2460 would require employers to allow employees to use accrued sick leave also would be broader than those currently protected under the medical leave provisions of the FMLA. Under H.R. 2460, employees could use sick leave for any of the following absences:
An absence resulting from a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition of the employee;
An absence resulting from obtaining professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventive medical care, for the employee
In absence for the purpose of caring for a child, a parent, a spouse, or any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship (a “family member”), who has any of the conditions or needs for diagnosis or care of a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition or in the case of someone who is not a child, is otherwise in need of care; and
An absence resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the time is to seek medical attention for the employee or a family member to recover from physical or psychological injury or disability caused by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking or obtain or assist a family member in obtaining services from a victim services organization, psychological or other counseling; to seek relocation; or to take legal action, including preparing for or participating in any civil or criminal legal proceeding related to or resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
In addition, H.R. 2460 also would require covered employers:
To notify employees about their sick leave rights as dictated by H.R. 2460; and
Not to discharge or discriminating against (including retaliating against) any individual, including a job applicant, for exercising, or attempting to exercise, any right provided or for opposing any practice made unlawful by H.R. 2460;
Not to use the taking of paid sick time under H.R. 2460 as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action;
Not to count the paid sick time under a no-fault attendance policy or any other absence control policy;
Not otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under H.R. 2460; and
Not to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against (including retaliating against) any individual, including a job applicant, because such individual has filed an action, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to H.R. 2450; has given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under H.R. 2450; or has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under H.R. 2450.
Even before the current economic downturn, many employers already viewed the unpaid leave mandates imposed by the FMLA and other laws as burdensome. The added costs and complexities of providing more paid time off under another federally imposed mandate couldn’t come at a worse time for many employers. Given the number of co-sponsors, many commentators view the proposed mandates in H.R. 2450 as likely to pass the House unless businesses act quickly to educate members of Congress about their concerns.
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,
If you need help responding to these proposals or with other questions relating to compliance or risk management under other federal or state employment, employee benefits, compensation, or internal controls laws or regulations, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402 or via e-mail here. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” works with businesses, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, internal controls and compensation matters.
Other Information & Resources
We hope that this information is useful to you. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here, For more information and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website.
You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.
Employers will face more changes to their responsibilities to employees serving or returning from military service and their families if Congress adopts certain proposed legislation scheduled for hearings by members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs this week. Concerned businesses should communicate any concerns to members of these committees and other Congressional contacts as soon as possible.
As Congress continues to consider additional expansions to existing federal veteran re-employment rights and retraining programs, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs is holding hearings on several pending proposals. On Thursday, June 4, 2009, for instance:
The Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs plans to mark up H.R. 1211, Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act and then hold a hearing on “Meeting the Needs of Family Caregivers of Veterans” beginning at 10:30 a.m. Eastern in Room 334 Cannon House Office Building; and
The Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs plans to hear testimony about a proposal to extend existing military employment leave and reemployment rights to individuals called to full-time National Guard duty set forth in H.R. 1879, the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009, at a hearing to consider several pieces of legislation scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 4, 2009 See Hearing Schedule.
The June 4 hearings are the latest in a series of Congressional activities hearings focusing on promoting employment and health care rights for individuals serving or returning from service in the military and their families. In addition to H.R. 1879, other legislation scheduled for mark up during the Thursday afternoon hearing includes:
H.R. 1037, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2009 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a five-year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code;
H.R. 1098, Veterans’ Worker Retraining Act of 2009 would increase the amount of educational assistance payments made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to individuals pursuing an apprenticeship or on-job training under: (1) the Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program; (2) the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans educational assistance program; (3) the Survivors and Dependents educational assistance program; and (4) the Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program.
H.R. 1172, Pat Tillman Veterans’ Scholarship Initiative would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs a list of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors;
H.R. 1821, Equity for Injured Veterans Act of 2009 would increase vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits for certain veterans and provide child care reimbursement for certain rehabilitating single veterans; and
H.R. 2180, would amend title 38, United States Code, to waive housing loan fees for certain veterans with service-connected disabilities called to active service.
If you need help responding to these proposals or with other questions relating to compliance or risk management under other federal and state military leave and veterans rights laws or regulations, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402 or cstamer@cttlegal.com. Board Certified In Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” works with businesses, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, internal controls and compensation matters.
Pressure is mounting for group health plans and their employer and other sponsors and administrators to complete the details required to comply with special medical coverage continuation rules (COBRA Subsidy Rules) added to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (COBRA) by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill).
The U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) recently (May 21, 2009) announced its appeal process for assistance eligible individuals to use to complain to the EBSA when they believe they wrongfully have been denied a premium subsidy for their group health plan continuation coverage in violation of the temporary modifications (COBRA Subsidy Rules) to the group health plan medical coverage continuation requirements of the COBRA Stimulus Rules. These are the expedited complaint and appeals procedures mandated under the Stimulus Bill.
The COBRA Subsidy Rules, new genetic information nondiscrimination rules and other recent and impending changes to federal health plan eligibility mandates will be explained on June 23, 2009 during a 2009 Health Plan Eligibility Update briefing hosted by the Dallas Human Resources Management Association. Get details or register here.
The Stimulus Bill allows individuals denied the premium subsidy to get expedited review by the EBSA. Under the appeals procedures announced May 21, individuals begin this review process by completing an appeals application available on line at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/COBRA/main.
Employers and group health plans and their plan administrators and plan insurers have been required to provide notifications and COBRA premium subsidies for certain former employees and their dependents that qualify as assistance eligible individuals and take other actions to comply with the COBRA Subsidy Rules since the COBRA Subsidy Rules took effective on February 17, 2009. While many employers and plan administrators undertaken some efforts to comply with these new COBRA mandates, many still have not fully completed all of the compliance arrangements.
With procedures to receive and administer appeals, the EBSA now is prepared to investigate possible violations of the Stimulus Bill COBRA rules. Accordingly, employers, plan administrators and insurers sponsoring or administering group health plan should prepare to respond to investigations that may be initiated by the filing of a request for EBSA review.
You can read details about the COBRA Subsidy Rules here.
Stimulus COBRA Rules In A Nutshell
Congress enacted the COBRA Subsidy Rules that took effect February 17, 2009 to help certain involuntarily terminated former employees and their dependents maintain COBRA coverage by requiring COBRA-covered group health plans temporarily to extend certain special COBRA treatment for “assistance eligible individuals.”
The Stimulus Bill temporarily limits the COBRA premium that a COBRA-covered group health plan can require an “assistance eligible individual” to pay for COBRA Coverage to 35% of the otherwise applicable COBRA premium (the “Reduced Premium”) for a period of up to 9 months (the “Subsidy Period”) beginning with the individual’s first period of COBRA Coverage beginning after February 17, 2009. The employer or insurer that collects this Reduced Premium must pay the remaining 65% of the COBRA premium (the “COBRA Subsidy”) for the assistance eligible individual during the Subsidy Period. However, the Stimulus Bill provides for that employer or insurer to claim a payroll tax credit equal to the amount of these COBRA Subsidy payments by complying with applicable IRS procedures.
The Stimulus COBRA Rules also requires group health plans to offer a second COBRA enrollment period to each assistance eligible individual not enrolled in COBRA Coverage on February 17, 2009. These second electors must be allowed to elect prospectively to enroll in COBRA coverage until the date that their COBRA Coverage eligibility otherwise would have ended if they had maintained COBRA Coverage since their termination.
Additionally, COBRA-covered group health plans that offer employees different plan options allow assistance eligible individuals the option to change their coverage choice from a higher cost option to a lesser cost option. Group health plan administrators also must provide certain notifications to assistance eligible individuals concerning these changes.
“Assistance Eligible Individuals”
The Stimulus COBRA Rules only apply to qualified beneficiaries whose loss of coverage resulted from the “involuntary termination of employment” of a covered employee. The Stimulus Bill definition of “assistance eligible individual” generally includes any COBRA “qualified beneficiary” who meets all of the following requirements:
ü Has a loss of coverage within the meaning of COBRA (“qualifying event”) as a result of the “involuntary termination of employment” of a covered employee from September 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009;
ü Is eligible for COBRA Coverage at any time during the period beginning September 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2009; and
ü Elects COBRA coverage when first offered or as during the additional second election period required for assistance eligible individuals not enrolled in COBRA Coverage on February 17, 2009.
IRS Notice 2009-27 defines an “involuntary termination” as “a severance from employment due to the independent exercise of the unilateral authority of the employer to terminate the employment, other than due to the employee’s implicit or explicit request, where the employee was willing and able to continue performing services” based on all the facts and circumstances.
For COBRA Premium Assistance purposes, the facts and circumstances determine whether a termination is involuntary. Thus, IRS Notice 2009-27 states that a termination designated as voluntary or as a resignation nevertheless will be considered involuntary where the facts and circumstances indicate that the employer would have terminated the employee’s services, and that the employee had knowledge that the employee would be terminated.
Notice 2009-27 identifies as examples of terminations that fall within this definition of “involuntary termination” as including the following facts and circumstances:
ü The employer’s failure to renew a contract at the time the contract expires, if the employee was willing and able to execute a new contract providing terms and conditions similar to those in the expiring contract and to continue providing the services;
ü An employee-initiated termination from employment if the termination from employment constitutes a termination for good reason due to employer action that causes a material negative change in the employment relationship for the employee;
ü An involuntary reduction of hours of employment to zero hours, such as a lay-off, furlough, or other suspension of employment, resulting in a loss of health coverage;
ü An employee’s voluntary termination of employment in response to an employer imposed reduction of hours of employment where the reduction in hours is a material negative change in the employment relationship for the employee;
ü An employer’s action to end an individual’s employment while the individual is absent from work due to illness or disability (but not mere absence from work due to illness or disability before the employer has taken action to end the individual’s employment);
ü A termination designated on account of “retirement” if the facts and circumstances indicate that, absent retirement, the employer would have terminated the employee’s services, and the employee had knowledge that the employee would be terminated;
ü The covered employee resigned as the result of a material change in the geographic location of employment for the employee;
ü A lockout initiated by an employer but not a work stoppage as the result of a strike initiated by employees or their representatives; and
ü A termination elected by the employee in return for a severance package (a “buy-out”) where the employer indicates that after the offer period for the severance package, a certain number of remaining employees in the employee’s group will be terminated
Notice 2009-27 also clarifies that the termination of employment giving rise to the loss of group health plan coverage and the loss of the group health plan coverage both must occur between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 in order for an individual to qualify as an assistance eligible individual. Consequently, if the involuntary termination occurs before September 1, 2008, but the loss of coverage resulting in eligibility for COBRA Coverage occurs after September 1, 2008 (but no later than December 31, 2009), Notice 2009-28 states that the individual will not qualify as an assistance eligible individual. Likewise, where an individual’s involuntary termination occurs by December 31, 2009, but the loss of coverage resulting in eligibility for COBRA Coverage occurs after December 31, 2009, the qualified beneficiary will not qualify as an assistance eligible individual for purposes of the Subsidy COBRA Rules. According to Notice 2009-27, where the involuntary termination of employment and loss of coverage as a covered employee or dependent occur between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, the election of COBRA Coverage need not occur by December 31, 2009.
Many group health plans are drafted to provide that the date that employee or dependent coverage ends or changes as a result of an employment loss is the last day of the month or some other date after the actual date of the employment termination. Under group health plans where the loss of coverage due to the qualifying event is delayed, Notice 2009-27 also reminds employers and plan administrators of the need to focus on how group health plan provisions, separation agreements and other related documents define when the loss of coverage occurs under a group health plan when applying these rules.
For purposes of COBRA, Notice 2009-27 states that when a loss of coverage under a group health plan occurs under these circumstances depends on how the group health plan treats the provision of health coverage between the date of the employment loss and the date of the resulting loss of employee and/or dependent coverage. If the plan treats the provision of health coverage as deferring the loss of coverage, Notice 2009-27 indicates the loss of coverage generally occurs when the individual ceases to be entitled to employee or dependent coverage on the same terms and conditions as would have applied had he not experienced the qualifying event. However, if the plan treats the continued provision of health coverage from the termination date until employee or dependent coverage later ends as a result as reducing the period of required COBRA Coverage, then the loss of coverage occurs on the termination date or other later date. Appropriate drafting is important to support the desired characterization.
Calculation of 35% of COBRA Premium
Based on the guidance in Notice 2009-27, many employers will want to terminate severance or other arrangements under which former employees are allowed to pay less than the maximum COBRA premium for some period of time. According to Notice 2009-29,.the premium used to determine the 35% share that must be paid by (or on behalf of) an assistance eligible individual is the cost that would be charged to the assistance eligible individual for COBRA Coverage if the individual were not an assistance eligible individual. If absent the Stimulus COBRA Rules, the group health plan would require the assistance eligible individual to pay 102% of the “applicable premium” for continuation coverage, i.e., generally the maximum permitted, the Reduced Premium equals 35% of the 102% of the applicable premium. As no good deed goes unpunished, however, if the premium the group health plan would charge the assistance eligible individual is less than the maximum allowable COBRA premium, the Reduced Premium will be 35% of that lesser amount. In determining whether an assistance eligible individual has paid 35% of the premium, payments on behalf of the individual by another person (other than the employer with respect to which the involuntary termination occurred) are taken into account.
Coverage Eligible For Premium Reduction
Notice 2009-27 also provides guidance about what types of group health plan coverage qualifies for premium reduction. According to the Notice, the premium reduction is available for COBRA Coverage of any group health plan, except a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) under section 106(c) offered under a section 125 cafeteria plan. This includes vision-only or dental-only plans, “mini-med plans” and certain health reimbursement accounts (HRAs).
The Notice 2009-27 distinguishes exempted FSAs from covered health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) for purposes of these rules. According to Notice 2009-27, while an HRA may qualify as an FSA under section 106(c), the exclusion of FSAs from the premium reduction is limited to FSAs provided through a section 125 cafeteria plan, which would not include an HRA.
Notice 2009-27 also indicates that retiree coverage can qualify for the premium reduction where the retiree coverage does not differ from the coverage made available to similarly situated active employees.
Premium Reduction Period Duration
Notice 2009-27 also provides guidance about when periods of coverage and the Premium Reduction Period begin and end. Under the Stimulus COBRA Rules, the premium reduction applies as of the first period of coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009 (February 17, 2009) for which the assistance eligible individual is eligible to pay only 35% of the premium and be treated as having made full payment. For this purpose, a period of coverage is a monthly or shorter period with respect to which premiums are charged by the plan with respect to such coverage.
According to Notice 2009-27, when the Premium Reduction Period begins for an assistance eligible individual depends on the period the plan charges COBRA premiums. Where a group health plan requires an individual who loses coverage other than on the last day of the month who wishes to enroll in COBRA Coverage to pay a pro-rata portion of the monthly premium, Notice 2009-27 states the first period of coverage to which the premium reduction applies for an assistance eligible individual who loses coverage after February 17, 2009 generally is the individual’s first partial month of coverage. A different rule applies when the assistance eligible individual elects COBRA Coverage under the second election period required by the Stimulus Bill Rules, however. Whether a plan requires COBRA Coverage be paid for based on a calendar month or pro rata basis, March 1, 2009 is the beginning of the first period of coverage within the Premium Reduction Period for any assistance eligible individual enrolling during the second enrollment period and the Reduced Premium only applies to that individual for COBRA Coverage from March 1, 2009 through the end of his otherwise applicable Premium Reduction Period.
End Of Premium Reduction Period
An assistance eligible individual ceases to qualify for the premium reduction on the earliest of:
ü The first date the assistance eligible individual becomes eligible for other group health plan coverage (with certain exceptions) or Medicare coverage,
ü The date that is nine months after the first day of the first month for which the Stimulus Bill premium reduction provisions apply to the individual, or
ü The date the individual ceases to be eligible for COBRA Coverage.
Notice 2009-27 confirms that the Premium Reduction Period of an assistance eligible individual ends on the first date he becomes eligible for other group health plan coverage or Medicare effect even if the assistance eligible individual does not enroll in the other group health plan coverage.
According to Notice 2009-27, whether an offer of retiree coverage that is not COBRA Coverage simultaneously with the offering of COBRA Coverage ends the Premium Reduction Period depends on whether the retiree coverage is offered under the same group health plan as the COBRA Coverage or under a different group health plan. If offered under the same group health plan, the offer of the retiree coverage has no effect on the Premium Reduction Period. If offered under a different group health plan, the offer of retiree coverage that is not COBRA coverage ends the Premium Reduction Period. However Notice 2009-27, however, If offered to someone whose eligibility for COBRA coverage arose between September 1, 2008 and February 17, 2009, the offer render the individual ineligible for the premium reduction only if the period the individual is given for enrolling in the retiree coverage extends to at least February 17, 2009.
Notice 2009-27 also addresses when eligibility for coverage under an HRA ends eligibility for the premium reduction. It states that becoming eligible for HRA coverage ends the Premium Reduction Period unless the HRA qualifies as an FSA under section 106(c). Under section 106(c), an FSA is health coverage under which the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant of the coverage is less than 500% of the value of the coverage. For this purpose, the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available is generally the balance of the HRA and the value of the HRA coverage would generally be the applicable premium for COBRA continuation of the HRA coverage.
Notice 2009-27 also clarifies that the Premium Reduction Period of an eligible individual may extend beyond December 31, 2009 for individuals who qualify as assistance eligible individuals on or before December 31, 2009. For example, the Premium Reduction Period of an assistance eligible individual whose Premium Reduction Period begins on December 1, 2009 could extent until August 31, 2010, assuming the individual does not become eligible for other group health plan coverage or Medicare or lose eligibility for COBRA Coverage before that date.
With regard to the effect of Medicare eligibility on an assistance eligible individual’s Premium reduction Period, Notice 2009-27 indicates that an individual currently enrolled in Medicare when the involuntary termination of employment occurs is ineligible for premium reduction, even though they may be eligible to elect COBRA continuation coverage by paying the otherwise applicable unreduced COBRA premium.
Dealing With Assistance Eligible Individuals Not Eligible For Premium Subsidy Based On Eligibility For Other Group Coverage
Under the Stimulus Bill, assistance eligible individuals are required to provide notification and resume paying the unreduced usual COBRA premium when they become eligible for Medicare or other group health coverage. Where an assistance eligible individual fails to provide the required notice and continues to take advantage of the premium reduction after his Premium Reduction Period terminates due to his becoming eligible for other coverage or Medicare, Notice 2009-27 states the employer is not responsible for recovering the additional premium or otherwise recouping the COBRA premium.
Dealing With Assistance Eligible Individuals Subject to Phase Out of Premium Subsidy Eligibility Based On Income
The Stimulus COBRA Rules include tax provisions designed phase out the COBRA Subsidy for certain highly compensated employees by taxing a portion of those amounts. Notice 2009-7 discusses the mechanics through which highly compensated employees can avoid this tax liability by electing to waive the Premium Reduction and Premium Subsidy.
An assistance eligible individual who wants to make a permanent election to waive the right to the premium reduction makes the election by providing a signed and dated notification (including a reference to “permanent waiver”) to the employer or other person who is reimbursed for the premium reduction under the COBRA Premium Subsidy provisions of Code § 6432. No separate additional notification to any government agency. If an assistance eligible individual makes the permanent election to waive the right to the premium reduction, the individual may not later reverse the election and may not receive the premium reduction for any future period of COBRA Coverage in 2009 or 2010, regardless of modified adjusted gross income in those years.
Notice 2009-27 makes clear that these rules don’t allow employers to deny the Reduced Premium to these assistance eligible individuals. According to Notice 2009-27, “Even if an assistance eligible individual’s income is high enough that the recapture of the premium reduction would apply, COBRA Coverage must be provided upon payment of 35% of the premium unless the individual has notified the plan that the individual has elected the permanent waiver of the premium reduction (or the period for the premium reduction has ended).
Second COBRA Election Period
The Stimulus Bill also requires group health plans to offer a second election period to assistance eligible individuals not enrolled in COBRA Coverage on February 17, 2009 whose employment terminated between September 1, 2008 and February 16, 2009. Notice 2009-27 confirms that any individual (including a dependent) who did not have an election of COBRA Coverage in effect on February 17, 2009, but who would have been an assistance eligible individual if the election were in effect must be offered this second election period. For those electing COBRA Coverage during this second election period, the resulting coverage begins with the first period of COBRA continuation coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009. Notice 2009-27 confirms that this extended election period is available for all individuals who are qualified beneficiaries as the result of an involuntary termination during the period from September 1, 2008, through February 17, 2009, even if they still have an open COBRA election period as of February 17, 2009. If these individuals elect COBRA under their original COBRA election period, COBRA coverage is retroactive to their loss of coverage and the premium reduction does not apply to the periods of coverage prior to the first period of coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009 (generally, periods of coverage before March 2009 for plans with monthly coverage periods).
If, as a result of the extended election period, an assistance eligible individual becomes eligible for COBRA Coverage under a group health plan that requires payment of COBRA premiums on a calendar month basis, the individual’s first period of coverage will begin on March 1 and the Reduced Premium only applies prospectively from that date. According to Notice 2009-27, this does not change even if the plan otherwise requires individuals who lose coverage before the last day of the month and who wish to enroll in COBRA continuation coverage to pay a pro-rata portion of the monthly premium for the first partial month of coverage.
In contrast, where a group health plan determines the required COBRA premiums based on the loss of coverage, Notice 2009-27 states that the first period of coverage begins on the first day after the loss of coverage and ends on the day of the following month corresponding to the day of the loss of coverage. For example, if the last day of coverage was October 3, 2008, the period of coverage runs from the fourth of the month to the third of the following month, and thus the first period of coverage on or after February 17, 2009, is the period March 4, 2009, through April 3, 2009.
Notice 2009-27 also discusses the operation of these rules as applied to certain HRAs
Who Pays The Premium Subsidy & Claims The Payroll Tax Credit
In previously issued guidance, the IRS indicated that between the sponsoring employer or union and a group insurer, the party that collects the Reduced Premium bears responsibility to pay the 65% Premium Subsidy then claiming the payroll tax credit under the Stimulus COBRA Rules. According to Notice 2009-27, if the insurer and the employer of insured, single employer group health plan have agreed that the insurer will collect the premiums directly from the qualified beneficiaries, the insurer must treat an assistance eligible individual paying 35 of the premium as having paid the full premium, even before the employer pays the insurer the remaining 65%. If the insurer fails to treat a 35% payment by an assistance eligible individual as a payment of the full premium, the insurer may be liable for the excise tax under Code § 4980B(e)(1)(B), which applies to persons responsible for administering or providing benefits under the plan and whose act or failure to act caused (in whole or in part) the failure, if the person assumed responsibility for the performance of the act to which the failure relates.
For More Information or Assistance
If your organization needs help responding to the COBRA Subsidy Rules or other group health plan or other employee benefit or human resources matters, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Ms. 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 its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at e-mail, (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 the Curran Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.
We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your Currant contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Bloghere. For important information concerning this communication click here.
New restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of genetic information applicable to employer and union-sponsored group health plans enacted under Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-233 (GINA) for group health plan years that begin on or after today (May 21, 2009). For non-calendar year plans with plan years beginning between June 1 and December 1, the effective date occurs on first day of their 2009 plan year. For example, the effective date will be June 1, 2009 for a plan with a 2009 plan year that begins June 1. For calendar year plans, the compliance deadline is January 1, 2010. All employer-sponsored group health plans are required to comply with GINA. There are no small group exceptions.
GINA In A Nutshell
GINA amended federal law to include specific prohibitions against certain discrimination based on genetic information by group health plans and health insurers (Title I) and to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information by employers of 15 or more employees (Title II).
Effective for all group health plan years beginning on or after May 21, 2009, GINA’s new restrictions on the collection and use of genetic information by group health plans added under Title I of GINA are accomplished through the expansion of a series of already existing group health plan nondiscrimination and privacy rules. GINA’s group health plan provisions amend and expand the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of information that falls within its broad definition of “genetic information” by group health plans. For individual health insurers, GINA’s restrictions take effect May 22, 2009. The broad definition of the term “genetic information” in GINA will require group health plan sponsors and insurers to carefully review and update their group health plan documents, communications, policies and practices to comply with forthcoming implementing regulations to avoid liability under new GINA’s rules governing genetic information collection, use, protection and disclosure in a series of areas.
Meanwhile, employers, unions and others face their own new prohibitions against genetic information based employment discrimination added by Title II of GINA, which take effect November 21, 2009. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published proposed regulations interpreting Title II of GINA in March, 2009.
Broad Definition of “Genetic Information”
The broad range of information included within GINA’s broad definition of “genetic information” means its new restrictions have a sweeping reach when applied to most group health plans. GINA defines “genetic information to include with respect to any individual, information about:
Such individual’s genetic tests;
The genetic tests of family members of such individual; and
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.
Pending issuance of regulatory guidance, GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” raises potential challenges for a broad range of group health plan health assessment and other wellness and disease management programs which provide financial incentives or condition eligibility on the provision of family health histories or other information that could be construed as genetic information.
Group Health Plan Genetic Testing Collection and Nondiscrimination Rules
Under GINA’s nondiscrimination rules, group health plans and health insurers may not:
Request, require or purchase genetic information for underwriting purposes or in advance of an individual’s enrollment;
Adjust premiums or contribution amounts of the group based on genetic information;
Request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except in limited situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Impose a preexisting condition exclusion based solely on genetic information, in the absence of a diagnosis of a condition;
Discriminate against individuals in eligibility and continued eligibility for benefits based on genetic information; or
Discriminate against individuals in premium or contribution rates under the plan or coverage based on genetic information, although such a plan or issuer may adjust premium rates for an employer based on the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual enrolled in the plan.
GINA also prohibits insurers providing individual health insurance from establishing rules for eligibility, adjusting premiums or contribution amounts for an individual, imposing preexisting condition exclusions based on, requesting or requiring individuals or family members to undergo genetic testing.
Of particular concern to many plan sponsors and fiduciaries are the potential implications of these new rules on existing wellness and disease management features group health plans. Of particular concern is how regulators will treat the collection of family medical history and certain other information as part of health risk assessments used in connection with these programs. Although official guidance is still pending, many are concerned that regulators will construe certain commonly used practices of requiring covered persons to provide family medical histories or other genetic information through health risk assessments (HRAs) to qualify for certain financial incentives as a prohibited underwriting practice under GINA. Even where health risk assessments are not used, however, most group health plan sponsors should anticipate that GINA will require specific amendments to their plan documents, communications and processes.
Taking timely action to comply with these nondiscrimination and collection prohibitions is important. Under amendments to ERISA made by GINA, group health plan noncompliance can create significant liability for both the plan and its sponsor. Participants or beneficiaries will be able to sue noncompliant group health plans for damages and equitable relief. If the participant or beneficiary can show an alleged violation would result in irreparable harm to the individual’s health, the participant or beneficiary may not have to exhaust certain otherwise applicable Department of Labor administrative remedies before bringing suit. In addition to these private remedies, GINA also authorizes the imposition of penalties against employers and other sponsors of group health plans that violate applicable requirements of GINA of up to $500,000. The minimum penalties generally are set at the greater of $100 per day or a minimum penalty amount ranging from $2,500 for de minimus violations corrected before the health plan received notice of noncompliance to $15,000 in cases in which the violations are more than de minimus. GINA also includes language allowing the Secretary of Labor to reduce otherwise applicable penalties for violations that could not have been identified through the exercise of due diligence or when the plan corrects the violation quickly.
GINA Amendments To Health Plan Privacy Rules Under HIPAA
In addition to its nondiscrimination rules, GINA also amends HIPAA to make clear that “genetic information” as defined by HIPAA is protected health information protected by HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Standards of HIPAA. This means that it will require that all genetic information be treated as protected health information subject to the Privacy and Security Standards applicable to group health plans covered by HIPAA. Although the statutory provisions that accomplish these changes are deceptively simple, compliance with these requirements likely will require group health plans and their business associates to amend existing privacy policies, notices and practices to appropriately restrict disclosures for underwriting, operations and certain other uses to withstand scrutiny under the GINA privacy rule amendments.
The HITECH Act amended and increased civil penalties for HIPAA privacy violations in many circumstances effective February 17, 2009.
Regulatory Guidance Status
As the the deadline for compliance for post May 20, 2009 plan years is rapidly approaching, however, many group health plans and their sponsors will need forward with their compliance arrangements in the absence of regulatory guidance interpreting these requirements.
GINA’s fractured assignment of responsibility and authority to develop, implement and enforce regulatory guidance of its genetic information rules can create confusion for parties involved in compliance efforts. Because the group health plan requirements of Title I of GINA are refinements to the group health plan privacy and nondiscrimination rules previously enacted as part of HIPAA, GINA specifically assigned authority to construe and enforce its group health plan requirements to the agencies responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of those original rules:
The Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA);
The Internal Revenue Services (IRS), and
The Department of Health & Human Services.
While these three agencies previously published a request for public comments about issues under Title I’s provisions, see http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-24194.pdf, none of these three agencies as of May 20, 2009 has published interim or other regulations interpreting the GINA provisions within their scope of responsibility since the formal comments period ended December 9, 2009. Although the EBSA Spring 2009 regulatory agenda reflected it intended to publish interim regulations by today and agency officials continue to indicate they intend to publish guidance “soon,” no guidance had been published as of May 20, 2009.
Even if the agencies issue guidance by the end of May plan sponsors and administrators of group health plans with new plan years beginning in the next 60 to 90 days are expressing concern that they will have inadequate time to complete compliance arrangements. As a result, in addition to guidance about GINA’s requirements generally, some are hopeful that the guidance with include transition rules or other relief to allow more time to comply with the regulations when finally issued. Regulators as of May 20, 2009 had not given any indication that they plan or perceive that they are authorized to provide such relief.
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 its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite 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 the http://www.cttlegal.com.
Other Information & Resources
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 its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at e-mail, (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 the Curran Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.
We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your Currant contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.
Many employers have used the Model Notices posted March 19, 2009 by the Department of Labor (DOL) to meet the April 17, 2009 deadline to provide initial notification to employees and dependents whose group health coverage terminated as a result of an involuntary termination of employment between September 1, 2008 and February 17, 2009 under the temporary rules added to the group health plan medical coverage continuation requirements of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (“COBRA”) by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Stimulus Bill”). However, most employers including many distressed and reorganizing companies and their group health plan administrators, fiduciaries and insurers have additional work to do to complete the arrangements to comply with these new Stimulus Bill COBRA rules
Although many employers and group health plans have taken preliminary action to comply, most employers and group health plan insurers, administrators and fiduciaries have not fully completed the steps needed to complete compliance arrangements. Among the companies sponsoring group health plans most likely to be behind in their compliance efforts are those in bankruptcy and distressed companies, where internal human resources and employee benefit staff and outside vendor relationships are likely to be reduced, overextended, or otherwise distracted.
In some instances, parties responsible for sending notifications and making other compliance arrangements have not begun to comply. More typically, however, employers sponsoring group health plans, their administrators, insurers or fiduciaries may mistakenly believe that preliminary compliance efforts fulfilled their compliance responsibilities. As a result, many have failed to complete all of the steps necessary to comply. For instance:
Many employers, health plan fiduciaries and administrators have not formally amended their group health plans, updated their COBRA initital notifications and summary plan descriptions, implemented required procedures and finished other arrangements necessary to bring their group health plans into compliance with the Stimulus Bill COBRA requirements.
Many employers, insurers, administrators and fiduciaries who used the Model Notices initially to provide required notices are finding additional refinements to their notices and procedures to reduce questions and confusion by recipients attributable to poor tailoring of the information to their particular plan design.
Many employers who outsource the collection of COBRA premiums or other aspects of COBRA administration will want to revise Model Notice language to avoid unnecessarily undermining previously negotiated allocations of fiduciary responsibility to those third parties for responsibilities outsourced.
Employers, health plan administrators, and health insurers involved in the sponsorship or administration of COBRA-covered group health plans should consult with counsel about the suitability of using the Model Notices to provide required notifications of the new Stimulus Bill COBRA rules and other steps necessary to comply with the new requirements. Compliance with the Stimulus Bill COBRA rules is mandatory for all COBRA-covered group health plans and certain other arrangements including group health plans sponsored by businesses in bankruptcy where the entity or a commonly controlled or affiliated entity continues to maintain a group health plan.
Stimulus Bill COBRA Rule Basics
The Stimulus Bill provisions that took effect on February 17, 2009 require special COBRA treatment for “assistance eligible individuals.” See “Stimulus Bill COBRA Amendments Require Immediate Group Health Plan Action” for more information. The Stimulus Bill COBRA amendments are intended to help certain involuntarily terminated former employees and their dependents maintain COBRA coverage. Employers must amend their plans to comply with these mandates and, if they wish to seek reimbursement for COBRA Subsidies, must comply with IRS requirements. Meanwhile, group health plan administrators and insurers must take immediate action to provide required notifications and implement other administrative changes necessary to comply with the new rules.
The Stimulus Bill definition of “assistance eligible individual” generally includes any COBRA “qualified beneficiary” who meets all of the following requirements:
Is eligible for COBRA continuation coverage at any time during the period beginning September 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2009;
Elects COBRA coverage (when first offered or during the additional election period): and
Has a qualifying event for COBRA coverage that is the employee’s involuntary termination during the period beginning September 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2009.
This definition includes both involuntarily terminated employees and their dependents who lost coverage under a group health plan due to the involuntary termination.
As part of their COBRA amendments, the Stimulus Bill limits the COBRA premium that a COBRA-covered group health plan can charge an “assistance eligible individual” to 35% of the otherwise applicable COBRA premium for a period of up to 9 months (the “Subsidy Period”) beginning March 1, 2009. Employers sponsoring these group health plans must pay the remaining 65% of the COBRA premium (the “COBRA Subsidy”) for the assistance eligible individual during the Subsidy Period. However, the Stimulus Bill allows an employer to seek reimbursement by claiming a payroll tax credit for these COBRA Subsidy payments by complying with applicable IRS procedures.
The Stimulus Bill also requires certain assistance eligible individuals whose employment terminated between September 1, 2008 and February 16, 2009 and did not elect COBRA coverage when previously offered or who allowed COBRA coverage to lapse after electing that coverage be offered a second COBRA enrollment period in which to elect prospectively to enroll in COBRA coverage. It also requires that group health plans that offer employees different plan options allow assistance eligible individuals the option to change their coverage choice. Also Group health plan administrators must provide certain notifications to assistance eligible individuals concerning these changes.
March 19, 2009 & Other Piecemeal Guidance
The March 19, 2009 DOL Guidance containing the Model Notices is part of a series of interim and evolving guidance separately issued by the IRS and DOL between February and April. The March 19, 2009 DOL Guidance includes:
Various Model Notices
New FAQs for Employers on the COBRA Premium Reduction
Expanded FAQs for Employees on the COBRA Premium Reduction
Updated FAQs for Employees on General COBRA Provisions
In addition to the March 19, 2009 Guidance, the DOL and IRS previous also had issued a series of other guidance relating to the implementation and application of the Stimulus Bill COBRA rules on a piecemeal basis. These include separately issued IRS guidance detailing the documentation and procedures that the IRS has indicated that employers or others who collect discounted COBRA premiums from Stimulus Bill assistance eligible individuals must meet in order to comply with the COBRA Stimulus Bill mandates and to recover additional amounts that the employer pays as a COBRA premium subsidy on behalf of assistance eligible individuals through the payroll tax credit provisions of the Stimulus Bill COBRA rules. You can review:
While the Model Notices and other guidance provides helpful insights about the new requirements, many group health plan sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries are likely to find it necessary or desirable to specifically tailor the notifications and other procedures they provide to more clearly communicate the workings of the new requirements as they relate to their specific plans so as to minimize administrative burdens of compliance and fiduciary risks.
More Resources, Information & Assistance
Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer consults with clients and writes and speaks extensively about COBRA and other group health plan matters. Author of the “Health Care Eligibility Toolkit” and nationally known for her experience on COBRA matters, her Solutions Law Press article discussing the highlights of these IRS requirements and other previous guidance at http://www.cynthiastamer.com/documents/alerts/20090303_NEW%20IRS%20&%20DOL%20Guidance%20On%20Stimulus%20Bill%20COBRA%20Relief.pdf is just one of many helpful publications she has written on the Stimulus Bill COBRA Rules and other related matters. The Stimulus Bill COBRA rules were among the updates discussed by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer during a March 11, 2009 Health Plan Update Teleconference she presented for Solutions Law Press.
If you are an employer or other group health plan sponsor, administrator, insurer or fiduciary and need assistance in preparing required notifications or with other matters relating to the Stimulus Bill COBRA Rules or any other health or other employee benefits matter, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at CStamer@SolutionsLawyer.net or via telephone at 972.419.7188. For information about how to purchase a recording of this teleconference or to review other breaking news updates about these Stimulus Bill COBRA Rules, e-mail CStamer@cttlegal.com.
You also can register to receive these and other updates by registering for this blog or by registering to receive other helpful Curran Tomko Tarski LLP publications at CTTLegal.com.
Recent concerns over the H1N1 Swine Flu (swine flu) pandemic and warnings of a possible resurgence of the swine flu pandemic or some other pandemic in the future is forcing many employers to question when concerns that an employee suffers from a contagious disease can justify the employer making inquires about the health of an employee or the exclusion of the employee from the workplace. New guidance set forth in the “U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ADA-Compliant Employer Preparedness For the H1N1 Flu Virus” (Guidance) published by the U.S. Department of Labor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 4, 2009 provides some insights for employers about the EEOC’s perspective on these questions.
The Guidance details the EEOC’s answers to certain basic questions about when the EEOC views certain workplace preparation strategies for responding to the 2009 flu virus as compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers considering updates to their current pandemic and infectious disease response plans are cautioned that in addition to potential ADA exposures, practices for periods after November 21, 2009 also generally must be tailored to comply with new restrictions on employer’s collection of and discrimination based on genetic information based on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Proposed regulations interpreting the employment provisions of GINA published by the EEOC in March 2009 do not specifically address the implications of GINA on employer planning or response to pandemic concerns.
ADA Concerns Apply To Employers Planning For & Applying Swine Flu Response
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects applicants and employees from disability discrimination. Among other things, the ADA regulates when and how employers may require a medical examination or request disability-related information from applicants and employees, regardless of whether the individual has a disability. The Guidance confirms that the EEOC views this requirement as affecting when and how employers may request health information from applicants and employees regarding H1N1 flu virus.
Effective January 1, 2009, Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) to change the way that the ADA’s statutory definition of the term “disability” historically has been interpreted by certain courts. The ADAAA amendments generally are intended and expected to make it easier for certain individuals to qualify as disabled under the ADA. While the Guidance announces that the EEOC intends to revise its ADA regulations to reflect the broader group of persons protected as disabled under the ADAAA amendments, it also indicates that the EEOC does not perceive that the ADAAA changes the actions prohibited by the ADA as they relate to common pandemic planning and response activities. Consequently, the Guidance states that the EEOC views the guidance in “Disability-Related Inquiries & Medical Examinations of Employees Under the ADA” published by the EEOC in 2000 and its “Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions & Medical Examinations” published in 1995 as setting forth the governing rules for medical testing, inquires and other pandemic response planning under the ADA.
Under the ADA, an employer’s ability to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations is analyzed in three stages: pre-offer, post-offer, and employment.
At the first stage (prior to an offer of employment), the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even if they are related to the job.
At the second stage (after an applicant is given a conditional job offer, but before s/he starts work), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, regardless of whether they are related to the job, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same job category.
At the third stage (after employment begins), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
The ADA requires employers to treat any medical information obtained from a disability-related inquiry or medical examination (including medical information from voluntary health or wellness programs), as well as any medical information voluntarily disclosed by an employee, as a confidential medical record. Employers may share such information only in limited circumstances with supervisors, managers, first aid and safety personnel, and government officials investigating compliance with the ADA.
Employers deviating from these requirements when administering their pandemic planning or response risk disability discrimination liability under the ADA unless they otherwise can defend their action under one of the exceptions to the ADA’s disability discrimination prohibitions. When making post-offer inquiries or requiring post offer examinations or imposing other conditions for safety reasons, the Guidance and EEOC in unofficial discussions have emphasized the importance of the employer’s ability to demonstrate the job or safety relevance of the medical inquiry or examination based on credible scientific evidence such as the latest scientific evidence available from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Other than emphasizing the importance of acting appropriately in response to credible scientific evidence and pointing to preexisting guidance, the Guidance does not extensively address with specificity the circumstances under which the EEOC will view any particular action taken by an employer as defensible under the safety or other exceptions of the ADA. Likewise, the Guidance does not discuss in any details the conditions, if any, under which the EEOC would view suffering, a history of suffering or association with or exposure to swine flu as qualifying an individual as disabled or perceived to be disabled for purposes of the ADA. Consequently, employer must rely on other less specifically tailored guidance for purposes of assessing the defensibility of a proposed action on these grounds.
Planning for Absenteeism Under ADA
When planning for a possible pandemic, employers must be careful about when and how they ask employees about factors, including chronic medical conditions that may cause them to miss work in the event of a pandemic. According to the Guidance, an employer may survey its workforce to gather personal information needed for pandemic preparation if the employer asks broad questions that are not limited to disability-related inquiries. An inquiry would not be disability-related if it identified non-medical reasons for absence during a pandemic (e.g., mandatory school closures or curtailed public transportation) on an equal footing with medical reasons (e.g., chronic illnesses that weaken immunity). The Guidance includes a sample of what the EEOC views as ADA-compliant survey that could be given to all employees before a pandemic.
The Guidance also indicates that where appropriate safeguards are applied to comply with the ADA, it also may be appropriate for an employer under certain limited circumstances, to require entering employees to have a medical test post-offer to determine their exposure to the influenza virus. According to the EEOC, the ADA permits an employer to require entering employees to undergo a job relevant medical examination after making a conditional offer of employment but before the individual starts work, if all entering employees in the same job category must undergo such an examination. Thus, the Guidance reflects that the requirement by an employer as part of its pandemic influenza preparedness plan that all entering employees in the same job categories undergo the same post offer medical testing for the virus in accordance with recommendations by the WHO and the CDC in response to a new influenza virus may be ADA-compliant.
Infection Control in the Workplace Under the ADA
The Guidance also discusses the EEOC’s perceptions about the ADA implications of employer use of certain infection control practices in the workplace during a pandemic provided that the requirements are applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion consistent with the ADA. For instance, the Guidance states that employers generally may apply with following infection control practices without implicating the ADA:
Require all employees to comply with certain infection control practices, such as regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and tissue usage and disposal without implicating the ADA;
May require employees to wear personal protective equipment provided that where an employee with a disability needs a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (e.g., non-latex gloves, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), employer provides these accommodations absent undue hardship;
Encourage or require employees to telework as an infection-control strategy, based on timely information from public health authorities about pandemic conditions or offer telework as a possible reasonable accommodation.
In all cases, of course, the Guidance cautions that employers must not single out employees either to telework or to continue reporting to the workplace on a basis prohibited by the ADA or any of the other federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws.
Impending GINA Rules
As signed into law, GINA amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of “genetic information” by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, joint labor-management committees, group health plans and insurers and their agents. GINA’s group health plan restrictions are scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009. The employment related genetic testing rules of GINA take affect November 21, 2009. Employers and other covered entities will need to carefully review and timely update their pandemic and other infectious disease response practices as well as their group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies in light of these new federal rules.
Although EEOC has not finalized its implementing regulations for GINA yet, employers should anticipate that GINA will impact their pandemic and other related practices. The implications of GINA for employers and other entities covered by its provisions because of its broad definition of genetic information.
Under GINA, “genetic information” is defined to mean with respect to any individual, information about:
Such individual’s genetic tests;
The genetic tests of family members of such individual; and
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.
Pending issuance of final regulatory guidance, Gina’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” raises potential challenges for a broad range of wellness and safety, leave, and other employment and benefit practices, particularly as apparently will reach a broader range of conditions than those currently protected under the disability discrimination prohibitions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Depending on the contemplated inquiry or practice, certain inquiries or actions intended for use as part of an employer’s pandemic preparedness or response activities could fall within the scope of GINA’s protections. For this reason, employers also should consider the potential treatment of a proposed pandemic preparation or response activity intended to be applied after GINA takes effect in light of GINA. Additionally, employers also should consider the risk that information collected under existing or previously applied pandemic or other infectious disease prevention and response activities might qualify for additional protection when GINA takes effect in November, 2009.
Other Resources
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 following resources authored by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer:
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 its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite 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 the www.cttlegal.com.
The recent sentencing of a West Texas man on a child pornography conviction serves as an important reminder to employers of the need to consider the potential criminal exposures and responsibilities of their organization and its management under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when an investigation of sexual harassment policy violations uncovers evidence that an employee may have engaged in the transmission or receipt of pornography on company computers or systems.
On May 8, 2009, U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings sentenced Rory Dale Worthan, of Big Spring, Texas, to 78 months in prison followed by a 30-year term of supervised release illegal possession of child pornography. Worthan pled guilty in January to one count of possession of child pornography. He admitted that on February 8, 2007, he had an image of child pornography on his computer’s hard drive that he had downloaded from the Internet. His conviction was part of a series of convictions resulting from a West Texas child pornography sting operation.
Although Worthan’s conviction related to his use of his personal computer system, statistics show that workplace access of child and other pornography during company hours is common. In fact, some studies report that 70 percent of all Web traffic to Internet pornography sites occurs between the traditional work hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. See “Workplace Web Use: Give ‘em an inch …,” Douglas Schweitzer, SearchSecurity.com (Sept. 27, 2004).
While most employers already are aware of the substantial employment discrimination and sexual harassment liability exposures that employee access, possession and transmission of pornography and other sexually explicit or suggestive content can create under Title VII and other federal and state employment discrimination laws, many are unaware that the use by employees of their computers to access, store, transmit or engage in other activities involving child pornography or other sexually explicit materials also may have criminal implications for their organization under certain circumstances.
As part of broader prohibitions against activities involving the sexual exploitation of minors, for instance under the U.S. Criminal Code, Title XVIII makes the creation, receipt, transmission possession, retention, transmission and certain other activities involving child pornography or certain other visual depictions involving the use or depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct under certain circumstances a felony under federal law.
Under the organizational provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a business that employs an employee or agent who engages in these activities during working hours or using company systems or equipment may face vicarious liability for the wrongful criminal actions by its employee in violation of these or other federal laws where the criminal action engaged in by the employee is a Felony or Class A misdemeanor. Under such circumstances, the liability exposure of the employer generally depends upon its ability to demonstrate that it had suitable policies and procedures in place to prohibit and prevent the activity, whether it timely investigated and took appropriate measures to report the violation to federal law enforcement officials and cooperate with them in their investigation and prosecution of the offending employee and other factors.
In addition to these criminal liability risks, employers also may face exposure to civil judgments in lawsuits brought by families of children victimized by employees using employer computers or operating systems. In Doe v. XYC Corp., 887 A.2d 1156 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005), for example, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that an employer could be held liable in a negligence action to a victim of child pornography based on the actions of one of its employees. In Doe, the wife of an employee who used his workstation computer at work to view and circulate nude photographs of his 10-year old stepdaughter sued the employer for negligence claim. The mother claimed the employer acted negligently by failing to detect and stop her husband from using his work computer to interact with child pornography Web sites, thereby allowing him to “continue clandestinely photographing and molesting” his 10-year-old stepdaughter.
For this reason, employers who uncover evidence that an employee or agent during working hours or using company equipment or systems may have created, received, transmitted, or stored child pornography or other sexually explicit materials must take prompt action to mitigate both their civil and criminal liability exposure. In addition to taking prompt action to prevent, investigate and discipline employees and agents that violate employer policies against using or possessing sexually inappropriate materials, businesses also should promptly seek the assistance of competent legal counsel to evaluate whether the prohibited conduct violated federal child pornography or other criminal laws. Where an investigation uncovers evidence of a potential violation of such laws, employers should seek assistance of counsel experienced with both employment and white collar criminal laws about the advisability of notifying federal law enforcement officials about that evidence and the best procedures to use to make those disclosures. In addition, employers should implement reasonable procedures to prevent and minor activities that may suggest employees or others granted access to company systems may be engaging in prohibited actions and take well documented action to investigate and redress this suspected misconduct.
As the monitoring and investigation of these concerns typically will require that an employer search or monitor employee e-mail or other files, employers also should ensure that they have in place appropriate privacy disclaimer, system use and background check and investigations that empower the employer to minimize potential exposures to privacy or other employment claims by employees or others whose e-mail or other files or activities are scrutinized in connection with these activities.
Chair of the Curran Tomko LLP Labor and Employment Practice and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer regularly assists U.S. businesses to investigate and redress sexual harassment and other employment and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with investigating or responding to a suspected sex discrimination or sexual harassment matter involving pornography or other suspected employee misconduct under company policies or applicable federal or state law, 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 Tarski, LLP team, see the www.cttlegal.com.
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) today (May 1, 2009) continued its efforts to increase awareness of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) by sharing information with state agencies and asking their assistance in helping dislocated workers, businesses, and partners in understanding the new law.
Under ARRA, employees involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 and their dependents may be able to qualify for a 65% discount in the required premium they must pay to maintain COBRA coverage under their former employer’s group health plan for up to 9 months. Special rules also apply to former employees who qualify for Trade Adjustment Assistance or affected by certain Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation insurance programs.
Employers must pay the remaining amount of the otherwise required COBRA premium, but can request reimbursement from the Internal Revenue Service by filing for a payroll tax credit under the provisions of ARRA.
Group health plans were required to begin complying with the new ARRA rules beginning February 17, 2009 and to notify workers of the new rules no later than April 18, 2009. Many employers and their group health plan sponsors are still working to complete the necessary arrangements to comply with these new requirements.
The communication of information about the new provisions by the DOL, group health plans, employers and the media have prompted an outpouring of questions from many employees and their dependents, confused about their eligibility for the ARRA COBRA Subsidy and its workings.
In Training And Employment Notice No. 42-08, which is addressed to state workforce agencies, labor commissioners and other state workforce regulators, the Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”):
Shared certain basic information about ARRA’s COBRA, Trade Adjustment Assistance and other workforce assistance relief;
Detailed some of the training and other resources provided by the DOL to help States and their citizens understand these new provisions and the procedures for their use; and
Asked the regulators to assist in communicating and disseminating the information to individuals who might qualify for benefits and other interested parties.
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally known for her knowledge and experience on COBRA and other health benefit and employee benefit matters,. You will find several of these previous publications on the new ARRA COBRA provisions on prior editions of the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update. You also can access some of the many practical updates that she has prepared on these and other COBRA matters by e-mailing or contacting her. She and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its COBRA or other employee benefit or human resources practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402 or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.
For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the http://www.cttlegal.com.
U.S. businesses should review the adequacy of their existing antitrust Federal Sentencing Guidance Compliance policies and internal controls in light of a series of recently announced antitrust enforcement actions recently announced by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).U.S. and other businesses and their employees and agents who engage in prohibited antitrust activities face substantial criminal and civil penalties in actions brought by the DOJ, civil judgments brought by private plaintiffs, or both.To effectively manage these exposures, businesses and leadership must ensure that their organization has in place appropriate employment, corporate ethics and internal controls and procedures for preventing, investigating and redressing potential violations.The management and discipline of employees and other service providers that violate these and other compliance policies is an increasingly important responsibility of human resources and other management leaders.
On Monday (April 20, 2009), DOJ announced that two subsidiaries of the Swedish company Trelleborg AB, one based in Virginia and the other in France, have agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of $11 million in criminal fines for participating in separate conspiracies affecting the sales of marine products sold in the United States and elsewhere.The plea agreements are among at least 9 major antitrust enforcement actions announced by the DOJ since the first of the year, including the longest sentence yet imposed for an antitrust criminal conviction.
Trelleborg Engineered Products Inc. &
Trelleborg Industries S.A.S. Plea Agreements
The plea agreement resolves a two-count felony charge filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Va., against Virginia Harbor Services Inc., formerly known as Trelleborg Engineered Products Inc. (VHS/TEPI), a manufacturer of foam-filled marine fenders, buoys and plastic marine pilings headquartered in Clearbrook, Va.Foam-filled marine fenders are used as a cushion between ships and either fixed structures, such as docks or piers, or floating structures, such as other ships. Foam-filled buoys are used in a variety of applications, including as channel markers and navigational aids. Plastic marine pilings are substitutes for traditional wood timber pilings and are often used in port and pier construction projects in conjunction with foam-filled fenders. According to the charges, VHS/TEPI participated in a conspiracy between December 2002 and August 2005 to allocate customers and rig bids for contracts to sell foam-filled marine fenders and buoys, and also participated in a separate conspiracy between December 2002 and May 2003 to allocate customers and rig bids for contracts to sell plastic marine pilings. Under the terms of the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, VHS/TEPI has agreed to pay a $7.5 million criminal fine and to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation. To date, six individuals and two corporations have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation of fraud and collusion in the marine fenders and pilings industries.
In addition, a one-count felony charge was filed today in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against Trelleborg Industries S.A.S. (TISAS), a manufacturer of marine hose headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France. TISAS is charged with participating in a conspiracy from at least as early as 1999 and continuing until as late as May 2, 2007, to allocate market shares, fix prices and rig bids for contracts to sell marine hose to purchasers in the United States and elsewhere. Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities. Under the terms of the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, TISAS has agreed to pay a $3.5 million criminal fine and to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation. To date, three corporations have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation in the marine hose industry. Twelve individuals have also been charged to date, nine of whom have pleaded guilty.
The plea agreements announced this week are part of a continuing DOJ investigation, which already lead to five former executives of TISAS and VHS/TEPI entering guilty pleas to participating in the conspiracies charged. Former VHS/TEPI president Robert B. Taylor was sentenced in January 2008 to serve 24 months in prison and pay a $300,000 criminal fine. Former VHS/TEPI chief financial officer Donald L. Murray was sentenced in March 2008 to serve 18 months in prison and pay a $75,000 criminal fine. William Alan Potts, a former vice president of VHS/TEPI, was sentenced in June 2008 to serve six months in prison and six months in home detention, and to pay a $60,000 criminal fine. Former TISAS executives Christian Caleca and Jacques Cognard were each sentenced in December 2007 to serve 14 months in prison and to pay criminal fines of $75,000 and $100,000, respectively.
Other Recent Antitrust Enforcement Activities
The plea agreements announced this week are the latest in a series of antitrust enforcement actions recently taken by the DOJ.Since the first of the year alone, DOJ also has announced a series of other major antitrust enforcement actions, including, for instance:
On April 9, 2009, DOJ announced that Cargolux Airlines International S.A., Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd. and Asiana Airlines Inc. plead guilty and agreed to pay a total of $214 million in criminal fines to settle price fixing charges.
On March 31, a San Francisco federal grand jury indicted Hitachi Displays Ltd. executive Sakae Someya with conspiring with unnamed co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels sold to Dell Inc. for use in notebook computers.With this indictment, four companies and eight individuals have been charged in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation into the TFT-LCD industry and more than $585 million in fines have been imposed as a result.
On March 10, Somey’s employer, Japanese electronics manufacturer Hitachi Displays Ltd., agreed to plead guilty and pay a $31 million fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc.
On February 10, 2009, a federal grand jury in San Francisco indicted former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. with conspiring with others to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices, reducing output and allocating market shares of color display tubes (CDTs) to be sold in the U.S. and elsewhere.The indictment also charges C.Y. Lin with conspiring with others to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices for color picture tubes (CPTs) to be sold in the U.S. and elsewhere.
On February 3, 2009, a San Francisco federal grand jury indicted two former executives from Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. (Chunghwa) and one former executive from LG Display Co. Ltd. (LG) for participation in a global conspiracy to fix prices of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels.
On January 1, 2009, former high-level shipping executive Peter Baci was sentenced to serve the longest jail sentence ever imposed for a single antitrust charge, 48 months in jail, and to pay a $20,000 criminal fine for his role in an antitrust conspiracy involving the transportation of goods to and from the continental United States and Puerto Rico by ocean vessel by agreeing to allocate customers, agreeing to rig bids submitted to government and commercial buyers, and agreeing to fix the prices of rates, surcharges, and other fees charged to customers. Related antitrust charges remain pending in the U.S. District Court in Jacksonville against three other shipping executives: R. Kevin Gill and Gregory Glova, of Charlotte, N.C. and Gabriel Serra, of San Juan, Puerto Rico. A related obstruction of justice charge is also pending against a fifth shipping executive, Alexander Chisholm, of Jacksonville.
On January 22, 2009, three air cargo carriers, LAN Cargo S.A. (LAN Cargo), Aerolinhas Brasileiras S.A. (ABSA), and EL AL Israel Airlines Ltd. (EL AL), plead guilty and agreed to pay criminal fines totaling $124.7 million for their roles in a conspiracy to fix prices in the air cargo industry, the Department of Justice announced today. Under the plea agreements, LAN Cargo, a Chilean company, and ABSA, a Brazilian company that is substantially owned by LAN Cargo, have agreed to pay a single criminal fine of $109 million. EL AL, an Israeli company, has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $15.7 million. According to the charges against the airlines, each airline engaged in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to eliminate competition by fixing the cargo rates charged to customers for international air shipment.
Under a plea agreement announced January 15, 2009, Chang Suk “C.S.” Chung, a Korean LG executive, Chieng-Hon “Frank” Lin, a Taiwanese former executive from Chunghwa, and Chih-Chun “C.C.” Liu and Hsueh-Lung “Brian” Lee, Taiwanese current employees of Chungwha, agreed to serve a term of imprisonment, pay a criminal fine and assist the government in its ongoing TFT-LCD investigation.
These DOJ actions and a host of others in recent years document provide examples of DOJ’s willingness to investigate and prosecute price-fixing, bid-rigging and other antitrust violations.The felony penalties associated with federal antitrust violations bring antitrust sanctions within the purview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.As a result, businesses that fail to take adequate steps to prevent or redress antitrust violations risk vicarious liability for violations committed but their employees or agents.Furthermore, business leaders investigating suspected violations must exercise caution to appropriately investigate and redress alleged or suspected violations to both protect themselves and their organization against liability based on allegations of endorsement by tolerance, potential cover up or other misconduct in connection with the investigation and redress process. At the same time, timely investigation, oversight and redress can substantially mitigate these liability exposures under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.Accordingly, to prevent and position themselves and their organizations to defend against potential antitrust complaints, businesses and businesses leaders should both adopt appropriate policies prohibiting their organizations and its employees and agents from engaging in price-fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive practices prohibited by federal or state antitrust laws, as well as establish and administer well-documented training and oversight practices to prevent, detect and redress potential or attempted violations of these policies.
To effectively manage these exposures, businesses and leadership must ensure that their organization has in place appropriate procedures for preventing, investigating and redressing potential violations.Among other things, businesses and their leaders should be certain their organization:
Has up to date policies in place and a process to monitor regulatory and enforcement developments for necessary updates;
Can demonstrate that it is appropriately administering well-documented audit, training and enforcement practices to prevent and redress potential violations as part of its corporate ethics and human resources practices;
Uses appropriate vendor selection, contracting, audit and oversight processes to promote compliance by business partners, agents and others with which it does business;
Has identified experienced counsel and developed a process for engaging counsel to assist in the audit of ongoing compliance efforts as well as the timely conduct of internal investigations of possible infractions within the scope of attorney-client privilege;
Designated an ethics or compliance officer, or other appropriate party to receive and investigate suspected compliance concerns and reports;
Has effective privacy, investigations, employment and other policies and procedures to enable the business to investigate, discipline and defend employment actions against employees or other workers for improper conduct;
Has appropriate processes and procedures for responding to government investigations and private compliance complaints; and
Promptly investigates and responds to reports of infractions or other compliance concerns in an appropriate and well documented manner.
Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP and its attorneys have significant experience assisting businesses and business leaders to establish, administer, enforce and defend antitrust and other compliance and internal control policies and practices to reduce risk under federal and state antitrust and other laws covered by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Labor & Employment Section Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; Edwin J. Tomko, CTT White Collar Crime Section Chair, at etomko@cttlegal.com, 214 270-1405 or any of the other following members of the Curren Tomko Tarski LLP team experienced in these and other internal controls matters.
We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com or registering to receive these Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update at the above link.
Employers that pay differential pay to employees absent on active duty military leave job must withhold income tax, but need not withhold or pay Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) or Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”) taxes on those payments, according to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling to be published May 4, 2009.
According to Revenue Ruling 2009-11, employers must withhold income tax and include military duty differential pay in wages reported on the recipient employee’s Form W-2. It also states employers may use the aggregate procedure or optional flat rate withholding to calculate the amount of income taxes required to be withheld on these payments.
Proper tax withholding and reporting is one of the expanding responsibilities that employers must juggle when a member of their workforce is a current or former members of the military and their family members including, for example, federal and state military leave mandates and new military caregiver and other family leave requirements for family members of members of the military that took effect during the past year. Employers should review their employment and employee benefit practices to confirm they are up to date with these expanded requirements.
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at e-mail, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curren Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.
More Information
We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com.If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.
U.S. employers should audit existing wage and hour practices and documentation and take other steps to defend against the heightened emphasis on enforcement of federal wage overtime, minimum wage, child labor and other wage and hour laws announced by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD). In a March 5, 2009 WHD Press Release, recently appointed Obama Administration Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced that WHD is adding 250 new field investigators and taking other steps to strengthen its enforcement of federal minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws.In her March 5, 2009 Press Release, Secretary Solis stated, “The addition of these 250 new field investigators, a staff increase of more than a third, will reinvigorate the work of this important agency, which has suffered a loss of experienced personnel over the last several years.”
The announced expansion of staffing comes in part in response to two reports made to Congress by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) over the past year, which were highly critical of the enforcement activities of the WHD under the Bush Administration. In a 2009 GAO Report To Congress released March 25, 2009, the GAO reported that a recent GAO audit of WHD enforcement found that sluggish response times, a poor complaint intake process, and failed conciliation attempts, among other problems left workers vulnerable to wage theft. The 2009 Report followed up on a 2008 GAO Report To Congress that case studies showed that WHD inadequately investigated minimum wage and overtime complaints by inappropriately rejecting complaints based on incorrect information provided by employers, failing to make adequate attempts to locate employers, not thoroughly investigating and resolving complaints, and delaying initiating investigations for over a year and then dropping the complaint because the statute of limitations for assessing back wages was close to expiring.
The continuing emphasis of the DOL upon FLSA enforcement, coupled with the growth in FLSA enforcement actions by private plaintiffs, provides an important warning to employers of low wage workers specifically, as well as employers generally, of the importance of being prepared to defend their worker classification and overtime practices against DOL and/or private litigant investigations.When it updated its regulations governing the classification of workers as exempt versus non-exempt under the FLSA in 2004, the DOL urged employers to review and update their worker classification and overtime practices to comply with the updated regulations.At the same time, the DOL announced its intention to vigorously enforce its FLSA regulations against employers failing to adhere to these updated rules.Despite these widely publicized compliance efforts, DOL studies of employer compliance with overtime rules continue to reflect that 50 percent of employers are not in compliance with these mandates. Therefore, in addition to adjusting existing rates of pay to comply with the increased minimum wage, employers also should:
Audit overtime pay practices to verify they comply with applicable federal and state requirements,
Review workers classified as exempt employees and/or non-employee contractors in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws to assess the sustainability of these characterizations against a legal challenge; and
Audit the adequacy of current practices for tracking and documenting time worked by non-exempt workers in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws.
Employers are cautioned to keep in mind that employers generally bear the burden of proving that their existing worker classification, wage and overtime practices meet or exceed the minimum standards imposed by the FLSA and any applicable state wage and hour law.
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting businesses to audit, administer and defend minimum wage, overtime and other wage and hour practices under federal and state wage and hour laws, as well as with other labor and employment, employee benefits and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, , please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see www.cttlegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.
The release yesterday (April 13, 2009) by the Internal Revenue Service of its 2009 “Dirty Dozen” Tax Scams List reminds businesses of the need to act to minimize exposures to tax related whistleblower or other retaliation claims by employees and other service providers that allege the potential involvement of the business in tax scams or other improper tax transactions.
Businesses face whistleblower, tax fraud prosecution, additional tax and penalty liability and other sanctions for involvement in tax shelters or other tax schemes.Employees and other service provider reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are the leading means through which the IRS identifies and proves fraudulent tax activities.
Yesterday’s IRS announcement of its 2009 “dirty dozen” list of tax scams heightens whistleblower risks for businesses by encouraging employees and others who may have knowledge of a business or other taxpayer’s involvement in these or other prohibited tax practices to report their suspicions to the IRS and sharing instructions on how to report suspected tax fraud to the IRS as a whistleblower. As part of these instructions, the announcement notes that “[w]histleblowers also may provide allegations of fraud to the IRS and may be eligible for a reward.”
The 2009 “dirty dozen” list of tax scams warns businesses about getting involved in 12 tax transactions that the IRS views as likely to create tax fraud and whistleblower risks. The tax schemes that made the 2009 Dirty Dozen List include:
Hiding Income Offshore
Filing False or Misleading Forms
Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions
Return Preparer Fraud
Making Frivolous Arguments
Making False Claims for Refund and Requests for Abatement
Abusive Retirement Plans
Disguised Corporate Ownership
Zero Wages
Misuse of Trusts
Fuel Tax Credit Scams
Taxpayers participating in the 2009 Dirty Dozen Tax Scams and other tax transactions listed as tax scams by the IRS risk exposure to additional taxes and penalties, prosecution for tax fraud, and potential whistleblower claims.The Dirty Dozen list singles out for special attention some of the many tax transactions that the IRS views as tax shelters or tax fraud. Depending on the nature of a business and its tax and compensation activities, businesses also may need to be concerned about scrutiny by the IRS for involvement in various other types of transactions that the IRS has identified as suspect. The IRS is urging U.S. businesses and other taxpayers to avoid participation in these common schemes.
Businesses engaged or accused of engaging in these or other transactions listed as tax scams or tax shelters by the IRS should exercise caution to confirm the appropriateness of the proposed transaction, to document their investigation of allegations of improper tax activities.For profit and non-profit businesses should include appropriate tax compliance oversight in their internal controls and federal sentencing guideline compliance programs.Businesses should review their activities in light of lists of IRS abusive transactions, should evaluate whether any of their transactions may be subject to scrutiny by the IRS, and take other appropriate steps to mitigate their exposure to prosecution for tax fraud, to tax related whistleblower liability and other risks.Businesses also should exercise care when dealing with employees or service providers who make allegations that the business may be involved in improper tax activities.Businesses also need to be prepared to demonstrate that they have not retaliated against individuals who report suspected tax fraud.The best defense to retaliation claims is a consistent, well documented legitimate performance and discipline record.Businesses should strengthen and consistently apply their employee performance and discipline processes to improve performance and deter whistleblower or other retaliation judgments.As part of this process, businesses also should adopt and enforce policies requiring employees and other service providers to report suspected tax or other compliance concerns, administer documented processes for receiving and investigating allegations of potential fraud or other noncompliance, and should document their conclusions and any corrective actions in response to these investigations.
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting establish and administer employment, corporate compliance, internal and external fraud and other controls; to investigate potential fraud or other misconduct; to defend employment, whistleblower, Federal or state criminal or civil investigations, audits and prosecutions and to address other employment, employee benefits and corporate compliance matters.If your organization needs assistance with assessing or managing its risk management and compliance responsibilities or liabilities under health care, employment, environmental, antitrust, securities or other federal or state laws, wishes to inquire about compliance audit or training or other services; or would like to review or engage and experience of Ms. Stamer, or other Curren Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402;or see CTTLegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.
More Information
We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see http://cynthiastamer.com/human_resources.asp or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com.If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog at https://slphrbenefitsupdate.wordpress.com.
U.S. employers must begin using the revised U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Employment Eligibility Verification Form known as the I-9 (Form I-9) on April 3, 2009.Meanwhile, certain federal contractors and subcontractors also must prepare to comply with impending requirements to use USCIS E-Verify when hiring employees scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009.
New Form I-9
The use of the new Form I-9 is required under an interim rule published by USCIS in December 2008.The interim rule also changes the types of acceptable identity and employment authorization documents employers can accept from new hires and prohibits employees from using expired identification documents to verify their work eligibility beginning April 3, 2009.Employers will be required to use the new Form I-9 and to secure documentation of proof of eligibility to work in accordance with the revised rules contained in the interim rule for all new hires and to reverify any employee with expiring employment authorization in accordance with the interim regulations beginning on April 3, 2009.
The new Form I-9 replaces the June 5, 2007 edition of the Form I-9 (the Old Form I-9), which will not be valid for use after April 2, 2009. A big change in the new Form I-9 requirements is that expired documents cannot be accepted as proof of eligibility to work. All documents presented during the Form I-9 completion process now must be unexpired. The new Form I-9 and interim regulations also add and remove certain documents to the list of documents that employers can accept of proof of identity and/or eligibility to work in the U.S.
The interim rule originally was scheduled to take effect on Feb. 2, 2009. The Obama Administration extended the effective date to April 3, 2009 under a directive issued in January.
Federal Contractor E-Verify Rule Scheduled To Take Effect May 21, 2009
Certain federal contractors and subcontractors also need to prepare to comply with a new federal rule that will require them to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009.The rule will only affect federal contractors who are awarded a new contract after May 21st that includes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause.Federal contractors may NOT use E-Verify to verify current employees until the rule becomes effective and they are awarded a contract that includes the FAR E-Verify Clause.
The new rule implements Executive Order 12989, as amended by President George W. Bush on June 6, 2008, directing federal agencies to require that federal contractors agree to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees. The amended Executive Order reinforces the policy, first announced in 1996, that the federal government does business with companies that have a legal workforce. This new rule requires federal contractors to agree, through language inserted into their federal contracts, to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons hired during a contract term, and to confirm the employment eligibility of federal contractors’ current employees who perform contract services for the federal government within the United States.
Interested persons can review the final regulation and read frequently asked questions about this new rule on the internet at the following cites:
If you have questions or concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other human resources, employee benefits or compensation matters, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or publication, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail to Cstamer@Solutionslawyer.net. .
More Information
We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful resources or additional information about Ms. Stamer at CynthiaStamer.com or by contacting Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog at https://slphrbenefitsupdate.wordpress.com.
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer 
slphrbenefitsupdate.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.