Employer | | Page 5

FTC, HIPAA Rules Require Health Plans & Employers Strengthen Data Security on Mobile Devices and Applications

February 23, 2013

Thinking about or using mobile devices and applications in your heath care, health plan, workforce or related operations or struggling to meet the demands of employees, plan members or others to allow use of these tools? Be sure that you’ve taken appropriate steps to design, implement and manage legal responsibilities and risks associated with the development and use of these tools.

While the popularity, accessibility and cost-effectiveness of mobile devices and applications provides a strong incentive for health and other employee benefit plans, employers, their business associates, workforce members and customers to use mobile devices and applications, the use of these technologies and applications to collect, access, or use personal health care, financial, or other sensitive information presents special challenges and risks. Unfortunately, as the use of these tools proliferates, federal officials are increasingly concerned that the data security protections afforded by many of the devices and applications in use on these highly popular smart phone, tablet and other mobile devices and applications is highly lacking. See FTC Settlement With Mobile Device & App Developer Shows Developers & Businesses Need To Manage Mobile App & Data Security.

As federal regulators and law enforcement responds to growing concerns about cyber security and other risks, heath care, health plan and other businesses, their employees, customers, and other business partners jumping on the mobile device and application bandwagon, health, application bandwagon, and the device and application developers developing and offering these tools must take appropriate steps to manage the personal health, financial, and other sensitive information and data that these tools use, create, access or disclose.

Of course, most health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers already recognize the need to use care when dealing with health plan data. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) generally requires that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their businesses associates safeguard personal health care information or “PHI” and restrict its use, access and disclosure in accordance with the extensive and highly detailed requirements of the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Regulations of the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

OCR’s collection of several multi-million dollar settlements as well as its statements in its recent restated HIPAA regulations and other OCR guidance make clear that OCR views HIPAA as imposing significant responsibilities upon covered entities and their business associates to safeguard and restrict access to PHI on mobile devices and applications. OCR’s Long-Anticipated Omnibus HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rule Tightens Privacy Requirements, Require Action; Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. OCR Pops Idaho Hospice In 1st HIPAA Breach Settlement Affecting < 500 Patients; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards; OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. These actions and statements of OCR provide a clear warning to HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates to expect significant consequences for failing to properly encrypt and safeguard ePHI used, accessed or disclosed on mobile devices and applications.

Of course, HIPAA isn’t the only law and health plans should not be the only area of concern when employers or their health or other employee benefit plan fiduciaries and service providers are considering mobile device and application use. In addition to HIPAA’s health plan requirements concerning PHI, mobile devices and applications used in connection with employment, benefit plan, and related operations also can trigger a host of privacy, data security and other rules requiring data security and other safeguards. Federal laws like the Internal Revenue Code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Graham-Leech-Biliey, the Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) or other Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rules, state data security, data breach, identity theft or other privacy rules or both are just a few of the many and constantly expanding regulatory requirements that can apply. Depending on the nature of the data and the circumstances of the unanticipated use or disclosure, invasion of privacy or other common or statutory laws also may come into play.

With the use of these applications by consumers and business proliferates, Congress, OCR, the FTC, state regulators and others are upping the responsibilities and the liability of businesses that fail to appropriately consider and implement security in their mobile devices and applications. Following on OCR’s restatement of its HIPAA regulations, the Obama Administration’s announcement of new cyber security initiatives, and a plethora of other federal and state regulatory and enforcement actions against businesses for data security missteps, the FTC recently launched a campaign to ensure that companies secure the software and devices mobile device and application providers provide consumers.

Earlier this month, the FTC introduced Mobile App Developers: Start with Security, a new business guide that encourages app developers to aim for reasonable data security.

On June 4, 2013, the FTC also plans to host a public forum on malware and other mobile security threats in order to examine the security of existing and developing mobile technologies and the roles that various members of the mobile ecosystem can play in protecting consumers.

Along side this educational outreach, the FTC also is moving to punish businesses that fail to act responsibly to protect sensitive data. This trend is illustrated by the FTC’s announcement this week of its first settlement with a mobile device manufacturer.

FTC Charges Against HTC America

This week, the FTC announced that mobile device giant HTC American, Inc. will to settle FTC charges that the company failed to take reasonable steps to secure the software it developed for its smart phones and tablet computers and introduced security flaws that placed sensitive information about millions of consumers at risk.

A leading mobile device manufacturer in the United States, HTC America develops and manufactures mobile devices based on the Android, Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone operating systems. HTC America has customized the software on these devices in order to differentiate itself from competitors and to comply with the requirements of mobile network operators.

In its first-ever complaint against a mobile device or application developer, the FTC charged HTC America failed to incorporate and administer appropriate safeguards for personal financial and other sensitive data accessed and used in these applications when designing or customizing the software on its mobile devices. Among other things, the complaint alleged that HTC America failed to provide its engineering staff with adequate security training, failed to review or test the software on its mobile devices for potential security vulnerabilities, failed to follow well-known and commonly accepted secure coding practices, and failed to establish a process for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports from third parties.

To illustrate the consequences of these alleged failures, the FTC’s complaint details several vulnerabilities found on HTC America’s devices, including the insecure implementation of two logging applications – Carrier IQ and HTC Loggers – as well as programming flaws that would allow third-party applications to bypass Android’s permission-based security model.

Due to these vulnerabilities, the FTC charged, millions of HTC devices compromised sensitive device functionality, potentially permitting malicious applications to send text messages, record audio, and even install additional malware onto a consumer’s device, all without the user’s knowledge or consent. The FTC alleged that malware placed on consumers’ devices without their permission could be used to record and transmit information entered into or stored on the device, including, for example, financial account numbers and related access codes or medical information such as text messages received from healthcare providers and calendar entries about doctor’s appointments. In addition, malicious applications could exploit the vulnerabilities on HTC devices to gain unauthorized access to a variety of other sensitive information, such as the user’s geolocation information and the contents of the user’s text messages.

Moreover, the FTC complaint alleged that the user manuals for HTC Android-based devices contained deceptive representations, and that the user interface for the company’s Tell HTC application was also deceptive. In both cases, the security vulnerabilities in HTC Android-based devices undermined consent mechanisms that would have otherwise prevented unauthorized access or transmission of sensitive information.

HTC America Settlement

The settlement not only requires the establishment of a comprehensive security program, but also prohibits HTC America from making any false or misleading statements about the security and privacy of consumers’ data on HTC devices. Under the settlement agreement, HTC American must:

Fix vulnerabilities found in millions of HTC devices;
Establish a comprehensive security program designed to address security risks during the development of HTC devices; and
Undergo independent security assessments every other year for the next 20 years.

HTC America and its network operator partners are also in the process of deploying the security patches required by the settlement to consumers’ devices. Many consumers have already received the required security updates. The FTC is encouraging consumers using HTC America applications to apply the updates as soon as possible.

The FTC Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 3-0-2, with Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating and Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly.

In accordance with FTC procedures, the settlement agreement will be subject to public comment through March 22, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments electronically or in paper form using instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

Act To Manage Mobile Application Device & Security

Given the expanding awareness, expectations and enforcement of OCR, FTC and others, health care, health plan and other industry participants deciding whether and when to use, or allow others to use mobile devices or applications to access data or carry out other activities and the mobile device or other technology developers and providers offering products or services to these organizations must get serious about security.

These and other related activities send a clear message that health care, health insurance mobile device and application users and developers must incorporate and administer appropriate processes and safeguards to protect PHI, personal financial and other sensitive data. In response to these developments, industry mobile device and application developers and the health care, health insurance and other businesses must consider carefully before deploying or allowing others to deploy or use these tools in relation to data within their operations or systems. Before and when using or permitting customers, business partners, employees or others to use tools, these organizations must ensure the adequacy of the design and security safeguards for their devices, software and applications, as well as their disclaimers and associated consumer disclosures and consents. Because of the special legal and operational expectations for these organizations, health care, health insurance and other industry provides must resist pressure to allow the use of these tools unless and until they can verify that these legal and operational requisites are fulfilled.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other human resources, employee benefit, or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Nationally recognized for her extensive work, publications and leadership on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience representing, advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical and other privacy and data security, employment, employee benefits, and to handle other compliance and risk management policies and practices; to investigate and respond to OCR and other enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, State Bar of Texas and American Bar Association, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, the Former Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, 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 serves as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR. Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, 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 publications and insights on HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns 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. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the third year will serve in 2013 as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

In addition to this extensive HIPAA specific experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her experience and skill aiding clients with a diverse range of other employment, employee benefits, health and safety, public policy, and other compliance and risk management concerns.

For help with these or other compliance concerns, to ask about compliance audit or training, or for legal representation on these or other matters please contact Ms. Stamer 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 find this of interest, you also be interested in exploring other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ tools, products, training and other resources here and reading some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ human resources news here including the following:

Comments Off on FTC, HIPAA Rules Require Health Plans & Employers Strengthen Data Security on Mobile Devices and Applications | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/13 JCEB Teleconference Explores Foreign Transferees: Outbound, Inbound, Equity And Treaty Issues

February 19, 2013

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will share her insights on health and welfare benefit challenges for multinational employers as one of the featured panelists on the “Foreign Transferees: Outbound, Inbound, Equity And Treaty Issues” Teleconference hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits on March 13, 2013 from 10:00-11:30 a.m. Central Time.

Intended to help broad-based U.S. and European community benefits attorneys and others seeking to understand common and unique issues associated with employee transferees, granting of equity compensation and associated treaty issues, including:
Basic issues associated with transfers including granting of past service credits, vesting and distribution issues
Case studies involving employee transfers between the U.S. and the UK.
Use of international deferred compensation programs.
Unique health and welfare issues associated with international transfers.
Interesting/Global equity issues to avoid.

Moderated by Elizabeth Drigotas, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Washington, DC, the program will feature a diverse and highly experienced group of distinguished government and private speakers including:

M. Grace Fleeman, Senior Technical Reviewer, Branch 1, (Associate Chief Counsel International)), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC (invited)
Andrew C. Liazos, McDermott Will & Emery, Boston, MA
Matthew Preston, Clifford Chance, London, UK
Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, Addison, TX.

To register or for additional information, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Sought out nationally and internationally as an industry thought leader and problem solver, attorney, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 25 years experience helping domestic and foreign private and public businesses, employer and union plan sponsors, health and other employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental and community leaders and others develop, implement, administer and defend creative, legally compliant and operationally effective health and other employee benefit, employment, insurance, pension and retirement, health care, workers’ compensation and workforce plans, practices, and policies.

Recognized in International Who’s Who, the founder and Executive Director of Project COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment and its affiliate, the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy; a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, American Bar Association, and State Bar of Texas; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee, current ABA RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Committee Welfare Benefits Committee Co-Chair and Substantive Groups Committee Member, and a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, and Immediate Past Gulf States Area TEGE Council Exempt Organization Chair, Ms. Stamer helps these and other clients. to design, document, administer and defend managed care and insurance programs, processes, and products; to monitor and manage evolving regulatory, contractual and fiduciary obligations and risks; to draft, negotiate, interpret and enforce managed care and other contracts, plan documents, insurance policies, administrative services agreements, and other agreements, policies, procedures and controls; to credential, monitor and manage fiduciaries, service providers, consultants and others providing services relating to programs; to conduct and defend litigation, audits, and other enforcement actions; to deal with legislators, regulators, auditors and others; and to fulfill legal obligations, mitigate legal risks and improve operational effectiveness.

As a core focus of her practice, Ms. Stamer continuously counsels, represents and defends self-insured and insured managed care and health, disability and welfare, pension, deferred compensation and other employee benefit plans; employer, association, insurer, and other employee benefit and insurance program sponsors; plan fiduciaries, administrators, brokers, consultants and other service providers; Medicare and Medicaid Advantage and other group, individual, stop-loss and other reinsurance, fiduciary liability and other insurers; health and insurance technology and other outsourcing companies; human resources, insurance and employee benefit consulting organizations; and other insurance, employee benefit and human resources industry clients, domestic and foreign governments and others about a diverse range of employee benefit, insurance, employment, tax, regulatory, risk management, public policy and related matters.

Ms. Stamer’s health benefit experience includes extensive and highly-innovative dealings with insured and self-insured managed care, defined contribution, indemnity and other health benefit, disability, life, occupational injury, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other welfare benefit and insurance plans and policies; and a wide range of other employee benefits, compensation, insurance, equity and other related arrangements. Her work includes leading edge development and use of 24-hour coverage and other occupational injury, ex-pat and other medical tourism products, HRA, HSA, HRA and other defined contribution, hi-deductible, deductible reimbursement, min-med and other limited benefit plans, 24-hour and occupational benefit, fraternal benefit and association, and other medical programs as well as a broad range of claims, appeals, audit, and other administrative processes and tools designed to promote defensibility and mitigate risks.

Along side this domestic work, Ms. Stamer also has extensive international experience. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on design, administration, operations, compliance, public policy and regulatory, and other challenges arising in the administration of multinational workforces and populations. Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised both U.S. based businesses and foreign owned or operated businesses about design and administration of employment, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, employment tax, occupational safety, discipline and promotion, collective bargaining, recruiting, compliance, risk management and other personnel practices for multinational workforces. She has worked extensively on the design and administration of pension, severance, health and other benefit and compensation programs for their multinational workforce. She assists businesses with cross-border and domestic employment, consulting, independent contractor, subcontractor, employee leasing and other staffing and vendor agreements; multinational Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and other compliance programs and practices; design, drafting, interpretation, implementation, and coordination pension, health care, severance, education, insurance, employment, tax, unemployment, disability, and other programs and requirements; represents and advises businesses, associations and government agencies before U.S. and foreign governments in connection with tax, employment, and other compliance matters, trade relationships and missions, public policy advocacy.

A widely published author and highly sought out speaker whose HR & Benefits Update has been recognized as among the “Top 50” HR Blogs To Watch, Ms. Stamer also regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources, health care and other compliance and management topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Insurance Thought Leadership, Government Institutes, Inc., Solutions Law Press, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, CEO Magazine, Business Insurance and many other industry, professional and business publications. An Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Employee Benefit News, and other publications, Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com. Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her regulatory and public policy advocacy, publications, and public speaking on privacy and other compliance, risk management concerns. For the past two years, Ms. Stamer has serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with OCR and has lead numerous programs for the ABA and others on this topic. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on 3/13 JCEB Teleconference Explores Foreign Transferees: Outbound, Inbound, Equity And Treaty Issues | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SLP Readers Get $400 Discount To Learn Key Health Care Reform Coping Strategies At 2/21-22 Employer Health & Human Capital Strategy Congress In Lake Mary, FL

February 5, 2013

Solutions Law Press, Inc. (SLP) readers qualify for up to a $400 discount on their registration to learn key insights from on strategies for charting the path forward to drive employee wellness, strengthen the workforce and impact global business competitiveness in the face of the impending health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act from SLP Editor/Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other leading employer health care decision makers at the 8^th Annual Employer Health & Human Capital Strategy Congress that the World Health Congress is hosting on February 21-22, 2013 at The Westin Lake Mary, Orlando North Conference Center in Lake Mary, Florida.

About the Program

Nationally recognized industry thought leader and attorney SLP Editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help kick off the program when she joins a panel of prominent HR leaders discussing “Assessing Alternatives and Opportunities: Defined Contribution and Exchanges-What are the Long-Term Implications on Your Human Capital Strategy” beginning at 9:30 a.m. on February 21, 2013.

Following this keynote panel, attendees also will learn other key ideas and strategies to help their organizations cope with Health Care Reform as they participate in a host of other insightful and timely presentations by dynamic team of prominent HR and other industry experts and network with other management and human resources leaders .including:

John Rother, National Coalition on Health care
Shawn Leavitt, Carlson Companies
Rebecca Mariet Lynn-Crockford, Suntrust Banks, Inc
Jo-Ann Gastin, Lockton Companies, LLC
Paul Grundy, M.D., Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative
Roger C. Merring, M.D., Perdue Farm Inc.
Sam Nussbaum, Wellpoint, Inc.
Benjamin H. Hoffman, M.D., GE Energy
Bruce Sherman, MD, Employers Health Coalition

For a full agenda and other details on the program, see here.

SLP Reader Registration Discount

SLP is delighted to announce that the World Health Congress is offering SLP readers the opportunity to claim a $400 discount off the otherwise applicable registration fee when registering for the program. To register and claim this discount, enter registration code “GHH925” at the designated location when registering for the program here.

About Ms. Stamer

Sought out nationally and internationally as an industry thought leader and problem solver, SLP Editor and author attorney, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has spent more than 25 years helping private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, health and other employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental and community leaders and others develop, implement, administer and defend creative, legally compliant and operationally effective health and other employee benefit, employment, insurance, health care and workforce plans, policies, practices, operations and policies.

A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators. Her Patient Empowerment Toolkit™, Play4Life Community Program™, and other patient empowerment, health care quality, and other industry thought leadership, advocacy and solutions have drawn the attention of business, government and community leaders for their insightfulness and practicality.

A widely published author and highly sought out speaker whose HR & Benefits Update has been recognized as among the “Top 50” HR Blogs To Watch, Ms. Stamer also regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources, health care and other compliance and management topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Insurance Thought Leadership, Government Institutes, Inc., Solutions Law Press, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, CEO Magazine, Business Insurance and many other industry, professional and business publications. An Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Employee Benefit News, and other publications, Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer directly via email here or (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on SLP Readers Get $400 Discount To Learn Key Health Care Reform Coping Strategies At 2/21-22 Employer Health & Human Capital Strategy Congress In Lake Mary, FL | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Talks on “What the Wind Blew In: Coping with Health Care Reform: 2013 and Beyond” May 2 At 24th Annual RPTE Spring Symposia In Washington, D.C.

January 28, 2013

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will a featured panelists discussing “What the Wind Blew In: Coping with Health Care Reform: 2013 and Beyond” on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 24th Annual RPTE Spring Symposia at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC. The Symposia scheduled to take place on May 2–3, 2013 will cover a broad range of timely topics on real estate, trusts and estates and other related concerns. To register, review the full agenda or get additional information about the Symposium, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

A noted Texas-based employee benefits and employment lawyer with extensive involvement in the leadership of the ABA and other professional organizations involved in employee benefits, health care and workforce matters, is nationally and internationally known for her innovative leadership and work as an attorney, consultant, policy advocate, speaker and author helping businesses, governments, and communities on health and other insurance and employee benefits, patient education and empowerment, wellness and disease management, and other programs, policies, and processes. For more than 24 years, Ms. Stamer’s legal practice has focused on advising and representing employers, insurers, health care providers, community leaders and governments about health care and employee benefits policy and process improvement, quality, performance management, education, compliance, communications, risk management, reimbursement and finance, and other related matters. In addition to her legal practice, Stamer also extensively consults and provides leadership to a broad range of clients, professional and civic organizations, and others on strategies for improving the health care system and the ability of health care providers, payers, employers, community organizations, government agencies to promote the ability of patients and their families to access cost-effective, quality, affordable health care and other resource needs. She also has worked extensively with a broad range of business and government clients on health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and many other related policy matters.

In addition to her service with the ABA, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civil organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Executive Director of Project COPE, the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and its representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and Vice Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; and as the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Committee Coordinator. She 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 retirement 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; on numerous seminar faculties and in many other professional and civic leadership and volunteer roles.

Author of the hundreds of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs, 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. Nationally known for her work on health care reform and related matters, Ms. Stamer also regularly conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, upcoming training, publications or other materials or events, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly via email here or (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Stamer Talks on “What the Wind Blew In: Coping with Health Care Reform: 2013 and Beyond” May 2 At 24th Annual RPTE Spring Symposia In Washington, D.C. | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Will Begin Accepting Returns Claiming Education Credits By Mid-February

January 28, 2013

As preparations continue for the Jan. 30 opening of the 2013 filing season for most taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that it beginprocessing of tax returns claiming education credits n by the middle of February.

Taxpayers using Form 8863, Education Credits, can begin filing their tax returns after the IRS updates its processing systems. Form 8863 is used to claim two higher education credits — the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit.

The IRS emphasized that the delayed start will have no impact on taxpayers claiming other education-related tax benefits, such as the tuition and fees deduction and the student loan interest deduction. People otherwise able to file and claiming these benefits can start filing Jan. 30, 2013

As it does every year, the IRS reviews and tests its systems in advance of the opening of the tax season to protect taxpayers from processing errors and refund delays. The IRS discovered during testing that programming modifications are needed to accurately process Forms 8863. Filers who are otherwise able to file but use the Form 8863 will be able to file by mid-February. No action needs to be taken by the taxpayer or their tax professional. Typically through the mid-February period, about 3 million tax returns include Form 8863, less than a quarter of those filed during the year.

The IRS remains on track to open the tax season on January 30 for most taxpayers. The January 30 opening includes people claiming the student loan interest deduction on the Form 1040 series or the higher education tuition or fees on Form 8917, Tuition and Fees Deduction. Forms that will be able to be filed later are listed on IRS.gov.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Will Begin Accepting Returns Claiming Education Credits By Mid-February | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Shares Procedures Employers Use To Claim Increased Monthly Transit Benefit Exclusion Allowed By Administrative Taxpayer Relief Act

January 28, 2013

The Administrative Taxpayer Relief Act retroactively increased monthly transit benefit limit that employers can provide to employees on a tax-free basis for 2012 from $125 per month to $240 per month. Notice 2013-8 provides a special correction procedure for employers who paid benefits in excess of $125 per month in 2012 and wish to make corrections on their fourth quarter Form 941.

Notice 2013-8 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-7 on February 11, 2013

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Shares Procedures Employers Use To Claim Increased Monthly Transit Benefit Exclusion Allowed By Administrative Taxpayer Relief Act | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Employer, Employment, transit benefit exclusion | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers ACA Health Reforms Prohibit Using HRAs To Pay Individual Medical Policy Premiums & Impact Other HRA Arrangements

January 27, 2013

Since the enactment of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), many employers searching for health plan solutions may have been asked to consider replacing or modifying their existing insured or self-insured group health plan with a “health reimbursement arrangement” (HRA) or other arrangement which would reimburse employees for premiums paid for individual health insurance policies. New guidance released on Thursday, January 24, 2013 indicates that such arrangements are prohibited as part of the ACA health care reforms.

“FAQS About Affordable Care Implementation (Part XI)” (FAQ) available here issued by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Agencies) on January 24, 2013 sends a clear message to employers that trying to escape ACA or other federal group health plan mandates by replacing their traditional insured or group health plans or policies with health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) or other arrangements under which the employer agrees to provide a fixed defined contribution to be used to buy or reimburses employees for buying individual health insurance generally won’t pass legal muster. The FAQ also indicates that employers sponsoring HRAs that only reimburse medical expenses, not individual health insurance premiums also need to review their arrangements to verify that those programs also comply with ACA and other applicable rules.

Concerning the use of HRAs to pay for individual health insurance policy premiums, the FAQ states that PHS Act Section 2711 generally prohibits an employer-sponsored HRA cannot be integrated with individual market coverage or with an employer plan that provides coverage through individual policies. Under ACA, employers that improperly offer arrangements that violate PHS Section 2711 or other group health plans risk exposing themselves to liability for significant unanticipated health benefit claims, as well as other penalties and costs. Therefore, employers that have or are contemplating arrangements that provide or reimburse premiums for individual health insurance coverage are urged to contact qualified legal counsel with documented experience with ACA and other group health plan requirements for advice before establishing or continuing such arrangements.

The FAQ’s guidance about the use of individual insurance policies to arrange coverage for employees is one of several issues addressed in the FAQ and part of a wave of new guidance that has and is emerging as the Obama Administration moves to full implementation of the ACA reforms. Employers, plan fiduciaries, insurers, and others involved in the design or administration of health benefit programs need to monitor carefully this emerging guidance as they move quickly to tailor their programs in response to these evolving rules. For help monitoring or responding to these evolving rules, contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers ACA Health Reforms Prohibit Using HRAs To Pay Individual Medical Policy Premiums & Impact Other HRA Arrangements | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer Deadline To Give ACA Notice of Exchange Coverage Options Delayed

January 25, 2013

The Department of Labor has extended the deadline for employers to notify employees about the existence of and their rights under the health exchanges required by new Section 18B of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as added by Section 1512 of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA). The extension announced in Frequently Answered Question (FAQ) here provides a welcome temporary reprieve to employers who otherwise would have been required to notify employees by March 1, 2013.

As part of the impending implementation of ACA’s health care reform, FLSA § 18B generally requires each applicable employer provide each employee a written notice (Exchange Notice) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor:

Informing the employee of the existence of Exchanges including a description of the services provided by the Exchanges, and the way the employee may contact Exchanges to request assistance;
If the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange; and
If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes. The Department of Labor expects that the timing for distribution of notices will be the late summer or fall of 2013, which will coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.

Before the Department’s announcement in the FAQ, the deadline for employers to begin giving employees Exchange Notices was the later of March 1, 2013 or at the time of hiring. The FAQ extends this deadline until a date to be set by the Department in future guidance, which the Department expects will require employers to distribute the notices in the late summer or fall of 2013 to coordinate with the open enrollment period for Exchanges.

According to the announcement of the delay, the Department delayed the impending March 1, 2013 deadline to give the (Exchange Notice) to better coordinate with related Health and Human Service and Internal Revenue Service efforts and to allow more time to comply and to distribute the Exchange Notices to employees at a meaningful time.

In addition to providing added time to provide the Exchange Notice, the Department also has announced that it is considering providing model, generic language that employers could use to provide the Exchange Notice. to satisfy the notice requirement. As a compliance alternative, the Department also is considering allowing employers to meet the Exchange Notice requirement by providing employees with information using the employer coverage template as discussed in the preamble to the Proposed Rule on Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing (78 FR 4594, at 4641), which will be available for download at the Exchange web site as part of the streamlined application that will be used by the Exchange, Medicaid, and CHIP.

The Exchange Notice is just one of a multitude of notices and other mandates that ACA requires that employers or their health plans, insurers, or both to meet. Although the Exchange Notice gives employers a little more time to provide the Exchange Notices, employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers are urged to continue to diligently move forward to update their plans, communications, processes and other arrangements to comply with existing and impending ACA mandates while keeping a watchful eye on for additional guidance that may require additional tailoring of these arrangements.

Stay tuned for updates about future guidance on complying with the notice requirement under FLSA section 18B and other developments.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employer Deadline To Give ACA Notice of Exchange Coverage Options Delayed | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hear Stamer Speak On “Coping With Health Care Reform Now” At 2/14 Dallas ICEBS Meeting

January 23, 2013

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will share key information and practical strategies for “Coping with Health Care Reform Now” at the Dallas Chaper ICEBS Valentines Day luncheon meeting on February 14, 2012. The meeting is scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m on February 14, 2012 at Haggar Clothing Company at 11511 Luna Road, Dallas, Texas . Interested persons may register or get other details at http://www.dfwiscebs.org.

With the initial debate about the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) decided and making a Congressional reprieve highly improbable, employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators are scrambling to update plan documents, communications, processes and procedures to meet current ACA and other health plan rules, while bracing to cope with the sweeping health care reforms slated to take effect in 2014. These already daunting tasks are made more challenging by the continuing uncertainty of the constantly evolving regulations, evolving marketplace, increases in health plan costs and ever-shrinking corporate budgets.

To help health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers deal with the tough business of implementation, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss practical strategies, legal updates and other information needed for to cope with health care reform now and to prepare to meet future health plan regulations and challenges including:

The Latest On Key ACA & Other Health Care Reform Regulations Such As ACA’s Requirements On Fees Employers Sponsoring Self-Insured Health Plans & Insurers Must Pay To Fund The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Contraceptive and Other Preventive Services, Nondiscrimination, Essential Health Benefits, Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review, Medical Loss Ratios, Large Employer Automatic Enrollment, Summary of Benefits & Coverage, Culturally & Linguistically Appropriateness, Value-Based Insurance Design, Wellness Programs, Exchanges, the Employer Pay-Or-Plan Mandates, Wellness Reporting, Wellness Programs, W-2 Reporting of Employer Provided Health Coverage, Employer Plan Minimum Value & The Premium Tax Credit And Other ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Mandates;
Key Changes To HIPAA Privacy Regulations & What Health Plans & Employers Should Expect To Be Required To Do To Comply With These Changes By the September, 2013 Deadline;
What’s Happened, Happening & Likely To Happen With Exchanges;
A 12-Step Practical Process For Helping Employers Managing ACA & Other Health Plan Compliance Responsibilities & Risks; and
Tips On What To Watch For And Options For Maintaining Flexibility To Respond To Evolving Rules; and
Answer Common Questions That Health Plan Sponsors and Administrators Are Struggling With Submitted By Audience Members

Registrants are encouraged to help shape the program to reflect their questions and concerns by e-mailing their proposed questions prior to the program to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net. The program’s educational* discussion will be tailored taking into account this input with significant time set aside to share practical information and possible approaches for addressing questions and concerns of shared concern identified from this audience input.

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, the American Bar Association & the State Bar of Texas, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her extensive and highly practical, solutions-oriented health plan work, advocacy, publications, programs and leadership.

For more than 25 years, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governments and others on health and other employee benefit, employment, insurance and health care compliance, risk management, public policy, administration and defense. Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, plan administrators and other service providers, outsourcers and others to develop innovative health benefit programs and solutions and to document, administer and defend those arrangements in the mist of rising costs, evolving regulations and changing markets.

A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer has been involved domestically and internationally as an advocate and advisor on health care, pension and Social Security, workforce and insurance reform and regulation. She presently serves as the scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Office of Civil Rights. She also represents clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators.

Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits Group, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee; Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; as a Council Representative of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an Editorial Advisory Board Member for the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Employee Benefit News and Insurance Thought Leadership; Editor and Publisher of various Solutions Law Press, Inc. publications, and previously served on the Editorial Advisor Board of the the BNA Employee Benefits CD-Rolm.

A popular and prolific author and speaker, Ms. Stamer’s Solutions Law Press, Inc. HR & Benefits Update publication was recognized as one of the Top 50 Human Resources Blogs To Watch in 2012. Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources and related topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators and many other organizations. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

* Registrants are reminded that this discussion is provided for general information and educational purposes. Accordingly, registrants are reminded that the discussion does not constitute legal advice, a substitute for legal advice or establish an attorney-client or other professional relationship.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Hear Stamer Speak On “Coping With Health Care Reform Now” At 2/14 Dallas ICEBS Meeting | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

BNSF OSHA Whistleblower Settlement Gives Employers Insights About Policies OSHA View As Prohibited

January 18, 2013

Review and update your policies and be careful how you handle employee reports of injury or safety concerns. That’s the message of the settlement recently announced with BNSF Railway Co. of Fort Worth, Texas (BNSF). BNSF has signed a settlement with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to voluntarily revise several personnel policies that OSHA alleged violated the whistleblower provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act. The law protects railroad workers from retaliation for, among other acts, reporting suspected violations of federal laws and regulations related to railroad safety and security, hazardous safety or security conditions, and injuries.

The whistleblower provisions of the 22 statutes enforced by OSHA protect employees who report violations of various commercial motor vehicle, airline, nuclear, pipeline, environmental, railroad, public transportation, maritime, consumer product, health care reform, securities, food safety, and consumer financial reform laws and regulations.OSHA charged that BNSF Policies of assigning points to workers reporting safety violations or injuries and other practices deterred or penalized workers protected by the whistleblower provisions of the law.

The major terms of the BNSF settlement available at http://www.whistleblowers.gov/acts/bnsf_accord.html include:

Changing BNSF’s disciplinary policy so that injuries no longer play a role in determining the length of an employee’s probation following a record suspension for a serious rule violation. As of Aug. 31, 2012, BNSF has reduced the probations of 136 employees who were serving longer probations because they had been injured on-the-job.
Eliminating a policy that assigned points to employees who sustained on-the-job injuries.
Revising a program that required increased safety counseling and prescribed operations testing so that work-related injuries will no longer be the basis for enrolling employees in the program. As part of the negotiations leading up to the accord, BNSF removed from the program approximately 400 workers.
Instituting a higher level review by BNSF’s upper management and legal department for cases in which an employee who reports an on-duty personal injury is also assessed discipline related to the incident giving rise to the injury.
Implementing a training program for BNSF’s managers and labor relations and human resources professionals to educate them about their responsibilities under the FRSA. The training will be incorporated into BNSF’s annual supervisor certification program.
Making settlement offers in 36 cases to employees who filed whistleblower complaints with OSHA alleging they were harmed by one or more of the company’s previous policies.

Between August 2007, when OSHA was assigned responsibility for whistleblower complaints under FRSA, and September 2012, OSHA received 1,206 FRSA whistleblower complaints. The number of FRSA whistleblower complaints that OSHA currently receives surpasses the number of whistleblower complaints that OSHA receives under any of the other 21 whistleblower protection statutes it enforces except for Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. More than 60 percent of the FRSA complaints filed with OSHA involve an allegation that a railroad worker has been retaliated against for reporting an on-the-job injury.

“Protecting America’s railroad workers who report on-the-job injuries from retaliation is an essential element in OSHA’s mission. This accord makes significant progress toward ensuring that BNSF employees who report injuries do not suffer any adverse consequences for doing so,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “It also sets the tone for other railroad employers throughout the U.S. to take steps to ensure that their workers are not harassed, intimidated or terminated, in whole or part, for reporting workplace injuries.”

“Ensuring that employees can report injuries or illnesses without fear of retaliation is crucial to protecting worker safety and health,” said Michaels. “If employees do not feel free to report injuries or illnesses, the employer’s entire workforce is put at risk because employers do not learn of and correct dangerous conditions that have resulted in injuries.” Read the News Release.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, or other federal or state agencies or other private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, compliance, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

New OCR HIPAA De-Identification Guidance Among Developments Covered In 12/12 HIPAA Update

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.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on BNSF OSHA Whistleblower Settlement Gives Employers Insights About Policies OSHA View As Prohibited | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, OSHA, Safety, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Publishes Long-Anticipated Omnibus Restatement of HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules

January 17, 2013

Health plans, their employer or other sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, administrative service providers and other business associates have a lot of work to do.

Health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will need to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the omnibus restatement of the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of its of its regulations (the “2013 Regulations”) implementing the Privacy and Security Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Rulemaking announced January 17, 2013 may be viewed here.

The 2013 Regulations Overview

Since 2003, HIPAA generally has required that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) restrict and safeguard individually identifiable health care information (“PHI”) of individuals and afford other protections to individuals that are the subject of that information. The 2013 Regulations published today complete the implementation of changes to HIPAA that Congress enacted when it passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009 as well as make other changes to the prior regulations that OCR found desirable based on its experience administering and enforcing the law over the past decade.

Since passage of the HITECH Act, OCR officials have warned Covered Entities to expect an omnibus restatement of its original regulations. While OCR had issued certain regulations implementing some of the HITECH Act changes, it waited to publish certain regulations necessary to implement other HITECH Act changes until it could complete a more comprehensive restatement of its previously published HIPAA regulations to reflect both the HITECH Act amendments and other refinements to its HIPAA Rules. The 2013 Regulations published today fulfill that promise by restating OCR’s HIPAA Regulations to reflect the HITECH Act Amendments and other changes and clarifications to OCR’s interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA.

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the manner required by the 2013 Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Liability & Enforcement Risks Heighten Need To Act To Review & Update Policies & Practices

The restated rules in the 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements.

The commitment of OCR to enforcement most recently was demonstrated by its recent settlement with Hospice of North Idaho (HONI). On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals.

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. Rather, OCR continues to rollout a growing list of enforcement actions demonstrating the potential risks of HIPAA violations are significant and growing. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other human resources, employee benefit, or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OCR Publishes Long-Anticipated Omnibus Restatement of HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rules | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Offers New Simplified Option For Businesses Claiming Home Office Deductions For Home-Based Business Owners & Workers

January 16, 2013

IRS Says Eligible Home-Based Businesses May Deduct up to $1,500; Saves Taxpayers 1.6 Million Hours A Year

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced a simplified option that many owners of home-based businesses and some home-based workers may use to figure their deductions for the business use of their homes.

In tax year 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available, nearly 3.4 million taxpayers claimed deductions for business use of a home (commonly referred to as the home office deduction).

The new optional deduction, capped at $1,500 per year based on $5 a square foot for up to 300 square feet, will reduce the paperwork and recordkeeping burden on small businesses by an estimated 1.6 million hours annually.

“This is a common-sense rule to provide taxpayers an easier way to calculate and claim the home office deduction,” said Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller. “The IRS continues to look for similar ways to combat complexity and encourages people to look at this option as they consider tax planning in 2013.”

The new option provides eligible taxpayers an easier path to claiming the home office deduction. Currently, the IRS generally requires a home-based business to fill out a 43-line form (Form 8829) often with complex calculations of allocated expenses, depreciation and carryovers of unused deductions. Taxpayers claiming the optional deduction will complete a significantly simplified form.

Though homeowners using the new option cannot depreciate the portion of their home used in a trade or business, they can claim allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes and casualty losses on the home as itemized deductions on Schedule A. These deductions need not be allocated between personal and business use, as is required under the regular method.

Business expenses unrelated to the home, such as advertising, supplies and wages paid to employees are still fully deductible.

Current restrictions on the home office deduction, such as the requirement that a home office must be used regularly and exclusively for business and the limit tied to the income derived from the particular business, still apply under the new option.

The new simplified option is available starting with the 2013 return most taxpayers file early in 2014. Further details on the new option can be found in Revenue Procedure 2013-13, posted on IRS.gov. Revenue Procedure 2013-13 is effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and the IRS welcomes public comment on this new option to improve it for tax year 2014 and later years. There are three ways to submit comments.

E-mail to: Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Include “Rev. Proc. 2013-13” in the subject line.
Mail to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (Rev. Proc. 2013-13), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.
Hand deliver to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Rev. Proc. 2013-13), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The deadline for comment is April 15, 2013.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with these or other health benefit or other human resources, employee benefit, insurance, compensation or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a member of the Editorial Advisory Board and expert panels of HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, and Solutions Law Press, Inc., management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer has 25 years of leading edge experience helping employers; health and other employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; TPAs, insurers, governments, employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work representing advising these and other clients, governmental bodies, insurance and financial services organizations, third party administrators and others to develop, design, defend and administer creative health, disability, severance and other employee benefit and compensation arrangements, products and services. She also helps these and other clients monitor, address and respond to federal, state, and international health care and insurance and other regulatory, legislative, audit and enforcement developments. Ms. Stamer has worked, extensively on these and other workforce and performance related matters. In addition to her continuous day-to-day involvement helping businesses to manage employment and employee benefit plan concerns, she also has extensive public policy and regulatory experience with these and other matters domestically and internationally. A former member of the Executive Committee of the Texas Association of Business and past Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, Ms. Stamer served as a primary advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization law, and has been intimately involved in federal, state, and international workforce, health care, pension and social security, tax, education, immigration, education and other legislative and regulatory reform in the US and abroad. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to get access to other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. Ms. Stamer regularly works with agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on human resources and employee benefits, medical and other privacy and data security, 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 publications and insights on HIPAA and other data privacy and security concerns appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

If you need help with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assists businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on IRS Offers New Simplified Option For Businesses Claiming Home Office Deductions For Home-Based Business Owners & Workers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Announces Cost of Living & American Taxpayer Relief Act Income Tax Adjustments

January 16, 2013

Revenue Procedure 2013-15 provides the 2013 cost-of-living adjustments for inflation for certain items. The guidance includes adjustments to the tax tables, including items whose values were specified in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), such as:

The beginning of the 39.6% income tax brackets;
The beginning income levels for the limitation on certain itemized deductions; and
The beginning income levels for the phaseout of the personal exemptions[

In addition Revenue Procedure 2013-5 modifies Revenue Procedure 2011-52 to reflect an amendment to section 132(f)(2) made by ATRA concerning qualified transportation fringe benefits. Specifically, for 2012, the monthly limitation regarding the aggregate fringe benefit exclusion amount for transit passes and transportation in a commuter highway vehicle is $240.

Revenue Procedure 2013-15 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-5 on January 28, 2013.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Announces Cost of Living & American Taxpayer Relief Act Income Tax Adjustments | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tax-Related ID Theft Growing Problem For IRS, Taxpayers

January 14, 2013

Employers and others collecting, retaining or reporting employee or other tax identification numbers or other sensitive information for tax withholding or reporting purposes should take appropriate steps to protect that information against possible identity theft or other misuse.

The wealth of sensitive personal identification information and financial records makes tax records a highly attractive source of data for identity thieves. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), tax-related identity theft incidents have risen significantly in recent years. Identity theft case receipts increased by more than 650 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2012. At the end of FY 2012, the IRS had almost 650,000 identity-theft cases in its inventory servicewide. The IRS reports the problem has grown worse as organized criminal actors have found ways to steal the Social Security numbers (SSNs) of taxpayers, file tax returns using those taxpayers’ names and SSNs, and obtain fraudulent tax refunds. Then, when the real taxpayer files a return claiming the refund, that return is rejected. The impact on victims is significant. More than 75 percent of taxpayers filing returns are due refunds, which average some $3,000 and are not paid until the IRS fully resolves a case.

When the IRS Commissioner testified in 2008 about identity theft before a Senate Finance Committee hearing. he stated: “My overall goal as the IRS Commissioner is that when a taxpayer [who is an identity theft victim] contacts us with an issue or concern, we have in place a seamless process that gets the issue resolved promptly.” Later that year, the IRS established an “Identity Protection Specialized Unit” (or “IPSU”), which was designed to provide centralized assistance to victims of identity theft. The National Taxpayer Advocate supported the commitment to centralized and prompt victim assistance.

Since that time, the IRS has created numerous task forces and other teams in recent years in an attempt to improve its identity theft processes, yet victims still face the same “labyrinth of procedures and drawn-out timeframes for resolution” that they faced five years ago. The IRS is instructing its employees to advise identity theft victims that it will take 180 days – half a year – to resolve their cases. Complicated cases inevitably will take longer. Thus, the IRS’s procedural changes are not providing faster relief.

The report also says the IRS has decided to reverse course and decentralize victim assistance. It recently created specialized units within each of 21 individual functions to work on identity theft cases, apparently under the belief that most identity theft cases involve a single issue that the relevant specialized unit can work most efficiently. The report expresses concern about this backtracking from a centralized approach.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) itself handled nearly 55,000 identity theft cases in FY 2012, most of which involved multiple issues that required actions by multiple units. The report expresses concern that creation of 21 specialized units will erode the centralized role of the IPSU, require taxpayers to speak with multiple functions, increase the time it takes to resolve cases, and heighten the risk that some issues may not be addressed.

“Taxpayers need ‘one-stop shopping’ – a single point of contact they can work with to resolve all issues in their cases – and the IRS needs a ‘traffic cop’ to make sure that all units complete their actions and that parts of cases do not fall through the cracks,” Olson said. “And six months is an unacceptable period of time to expect taxpayer-victims to wait. The IRS must do more to provide the prompt and seamless assistance to identity theft victims that Commissioner Shulman promised.”

While the IRS continues to work on protecting taxpayer data against theft and investigating and resolving tax-related identity theft cases, businesses that collect, retain and report employee, contractor or other personal financial information for tax related or other purposes are urged to take steps to protect the data that they collect and retain against identity theft. Since identity theft may begin when a worker misrepresents his or her identity at the commencement of employment, many employers find it beneficial to take reasonable steps to verify the identity and veracity of the documentation that a worker presents when commencing employment. Once data is collected, businesses and others that have access to personal financial information or other data collected for tax purposes need to recognize their responsibility to safeguard that information against improper use and disclosure under the Internal Revenue Code as well as other applicable laws. If confronted with a “no-match” letter from the Social Security Administration or a complaint or other indication that a worker may have misrepresented his or her identity, or another indication of a breach of this data, businesses should contact experienced legal counsel to aid in the proper investigation of these concerns and the resolution of concerns resulting from this investigation. Where appropriate, the business may need to report its concerns to the IRS or advise a worker or other party reporting a likely identity theft of taxpayer information to the TAS or other appropriate officials.

Businesses needing assistance with investigation or mitigation of a potential theft of tax or other sensitive data, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Tax-Related ID Theft Growing Problem For IRS, Taxpayers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tax Saver’s Credit Helps Low & Moderate Income Workers Save For Retirement; Possible Tool To Help Boost Their Participation In Employer Plans

January 11, 2013

As part of its continuing effort to boost retirement savings among Americans, the Internal Revenue Service is reminding low- and moderate-income workers to take steps now to save for retirement and earn a special tax credit in 2012 and the years ahead. Employers sponsoring retirement plans where low participation by low- and moderate income workers adversely impacts the ability of the plan to meet applicable nondiscrimination tests may want to consider incorporating information about the availability of the saver’s credit into their plan related communications as an added tool for helping these workers recognize the potential benefits of contributing.

The saver’s credit helps qualifying low to moderate income workers offset part of the first $2,000 workers voluntarily contribute to IRAs and to 401(k) plans and similar workplace retirement programs. Also known as the retirement savings contributions credit, the saver’s credit is available in addition to any other tax savings that apply.

The saver’s credit can be claimed by:

Married couples filing jointly with incomes up to $57,500 in 2012 or $59,000 in 2013;
Heads of Household with incomes up to $43,125 in 2012 or $44,250 in 2013; and
Married individuals filing separately and singles with incomes up to $28,750 in 2012 or $29,500 in 2013.

Eligible workers still have until April 15, 2013 to make qualifying retirement contributions and get the saver’s credit on their 2012 tax return by setting up a new individual retirement arrangement or adding money to an existing IRA. However, elective deferrals (contributions) must be made by the end of the year to a 401(k) plan or similar workplace program, such as a 403(b) plan for employees of public schools and certain tax-exempt organizations, a governmental 457 plan for state or local government employees, and the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. Employees who are unable to set aside money for this year may want to schedule their 2013 contributions soon so their employer can begin withholding them in January.

Like other tax credits, the saver’s credit can increase a taxpayer’s refund or reduce the tax owed. Though the maximum saver’s credit is $1,000, $2,000 for married couples, the IRS cautioned that it is often much less and, due in part to the impact of other deductions and credits, may, in fact, be zero for some taxpayers.

A taxpayer’s credit amount is based on his or her filing status, adjusted gross income, tax liability and amount contributed to qualifying retirement programs. Form 8880 is used to claim the saver’s credit, and its instructions have details on figuring the credit correctly.

In tax-year 2010, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, saver’s credits totaling just over $1 billion were claimed on more than 6.1 million individual income tax returns. Saver’s credits claimed on these returns averaged $204 for joint filers, $165 for heads of household and $122 for single filers.

The saver’s credit supplements other tax benefits available to people who set money aside for retirement. For example, most workers may deduct their contributions to a traditional IRA. Though Roth IRA contributions are not deductible, qualifying withdrawals, usually after retirement, are tax-free. Normally, contributions to 401(k) and similar workplace plans are not taxed until withdrawn.

Other special rules that apply to the saver’s credit include the following:

Eligible taxpayers must be at least 18 years of age.
Anyone claimed as a dependent on someone else’s return cannot take the credit.
A student cannot take the credit. A person enrolled as a full-time student during any part of 5 calendar months during the year is considered a student.

Certain retirement plan distributions reduce the contribution amount used to figure the credit. For 2012, this rule applies to distributions received after 2009 and before the due date, including extensions, of the 2012 return. Form 8880 and its instructions have details on making this computation.

Begun in 2002 as a temporary provision, the saver’s credit was made a permanent part of the tax code in legislation enacted in 2006. To help preserve the value of the credit, income limits are now adjusted annually to keep pace with inflation. More information about the credit is on IRS.gov.

For Help or More Information

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Self-Insured Health Plan Sponsors, Health Insurers Brace To Pay New ACA-Imposed Fees

January 10, 2013

Employers and other self-insured group health plan sponsors and health insurers, adjust your budgets and prepare to open up your wallets to pay additional fees mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”).

Self-insured employers and health insurers generally must begin paying a new fee imposed as part of PPACA. PPACA generally requires that health insurance policy issuers and plan sponsors of self-insured health plans pay the new fee for policy and plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019 or policy and plan years ending on or after October 1, 2012, and before October 1, 2019. July 31, 2013 is the deadline for reporting and payment of the first fee payment required by these provisions.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Treasury published final regulations (“Regulations”) implementing these new rules on December 6, 2012. These Regulations include many provisions that are likely to come as a surprise to many employer and other health plan sponsors. Health insurers, employers and other sponsors of self-insured health plans and others responsible for their funding and administration need to review these regulations and make other arrangements to budget for and timely report and pay this required fee.

New Fees Help Fund New Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

PPACA amended the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) to require the new fee to help fund the establishment and operation of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (the ‘‘Institute’’) to be created by PPACA. Congress intends that the Institute will be a private, nonprofit corporation charged with conducting research to help assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence-based medicine through the synthesis and dissemination of comparative clinical effectiveness research findings.

PPACA added new Sections 4375, 4376, and 4377 to the Code to provide a funding source for the Trust Fund. These new Code Sections impose require issuers of specified health insurance policies and plan sponsors of applicable self-insured health plans to pay the new fee by July 31, 2012 for each plan year beginning after September 30, 2012 and before October 1, 2019 to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (the “Trust Fund”), which in turn will help pay the costs of the Institute.

Code Section 4377(c) provides that the fees imposed by sections 4375 and 4376 are treated as taxes for purposes of subtitle F of the Code (sections 6001 through 7874 that set forth the rules of federal tax procedure and administration).

Fee Amount Calculation & Payment

As amended by PPACA, the Code requires that employers sponsoring self-insured group health plans and most health insurers file a return and pay a fee equal to $1 multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the plan or policy by July 31, 2012. The amount of this fee will increase to $2 multiplied by the average number of lives for post-September 30, 2013 plan years. For post-September 30, 2014 plan years, the Code provides for further adjustments in the fee based on increases in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures.

To meet this requirement, health insurers and plan sponsors must file a Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return along with the required payment once a year on or before July 31 of the calendar year following the last day of the policy year or plan year for which the fee is required to report and pay the fee.

Overview of ACA Rules Requiring Payment of Fee

The Code now separately assesses a fee on issuers of health insurance policies and on plan sponsors of self-insured health plans for each policy year ending on or after October 1, 2012 and before October 1, 2019. Code Section 4375 requires payment of a fee by “issuers” of “specified health insurance policies.” Code Section 4376 requires “sponsors” of self-insured health plans to pay a fee.

Each of these Code Sections basically uses the same formula to calculate the required fee owing by a health insurance issuer or a self-insured plan sponsor. The amount of the required fee due on July 31, 2013 for plan years beginning on or before October 1, 2013 will be one dollar multiplied by the average number of lives covered by the policy or plan. The fee due on July 31, 2014 for plan years beginning between October 2, 2013 and October 1, 2014 is set to increase to two dollars multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the policy. For policy or plan years ending on or after October 1, 2014, PPACA provides for additional increases in the required fee based on increases in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures. See Treas. Reg. §§ 46.4375–1; Rejecting arguments that Congress only intended to require that either the insurer or the plan sponsor pay a fee annually, the Regulations construe these requirements as obligating both a self-insured health plans sponsor and an insurer to pay a separate fee annually, even if the fee is assessed upon the same lives.

The Preamble to the Regulations states that a self-insured plan sponsor must pay the fee with respect to arrangements where the plan design layers a self-insured portion of the plan with an insured portion, even though the insurer also must pay the fee with respect to the insured portion.

The fee calculation differs slightly for purposes of determining the fee a self-insured plan sponsor owes versus the fee owed by an insurer. Regardless, however, the Regulations state that for purposes of calculating these numbers, retirees and beneficiaries continuing coverage under the group medical coverage continuation rules generally count. The Preamble to the Regulations states that the IRS views retiree-only plans and COBRA coverage subject to the tax imposed under Code § 4375 and plan sponsors may be required to pay the tax under Code § 4376. Concerning retiree-only coverage, the Preamble states:

Although group health plans that have fewer than two participants who are current employees (such as retiree-only plans) are excluded from the requirements of Code chapter 100 (setting forth requirements applicable to group health plans such as portability, nondiscrimination, and market reform requirements), this exclusion does not apply to Code §§ 4375 and 4376 because these sections are in chapter 34; and
For self-insured arrangements, Code § 4376(c)(2)(A) states explicitly that an applicable self-insured health plan includes a plan established or maintained by one or more employers for the benefit of their employees or former employees.

Section 4376 Fee For Self-Insured Plan Sponsors

Applicability of Code Section 4376 Fee To Self-Insured Health Plans. The fee under Code Section 4376 applies to the plan sponsor of an applicable self-insured health plan.

Section 4376(c) defines an applicable self-insured health plan as any plan for providing accident or health coverage if any portion of the coverage is provided other than through an insurance policy, and the plan is established or maintained by either:

One or more employers for the benefit of their employees or former employees;
One or more employee organizations for the benefit of their members or former members;
Jointly by one or more employers and one or more employee organizations for the benefit of employees or former employees;
By a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association described in Code Section 501(c)(9); or
By any organization described in section 501(c)(6), or (6) if not previously described, by a multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined in section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), a rural electric cooperative under ERISA Section 3(40)(B)(iv), or a rural telephone cooperative association under ERISA Section 3(40)(B)(v). See Code § 4376; Regulation §46.4376–1(a), (b)(1).

Code Section 4376(b)(1) requires that the plan sponsor of a self-insured health plan pay the required fee for self-insured health plans imposed by Section 4376(a). For this purpose, Code Section 4376(b)(2) defines a plan sponsor as:

The employer in the case of a plan established or maintained by a single employer;
The employee organization in the case of a plan established or maintained by an employee organization;
The association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other similar group of representatives of the parties who establish or maintain the plan in the case of: (1) a plan established or maintained by two or more employers or jointly by one or more employers and one or more employee organizations; (2) a multiple employer welfare arrangement; or (3) a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association described in Code Section 501(c)(9); or
The cooperative or association that establishes the plan in the case of a plan established or maintained by a rural electric cooperative or rural telephone cooperative association within the meaning of ERISA.

Regulation § 46.4376-2(b)(2) defines plan sponsor to mean the following:

The employer for a self-insured health plan established or maintained by a single employer;
The employee organization for a self-insured health plan established or maintained by an employee organization;
The joint board of trustees for a multiemployer plan within the meaning of Code §414(f));
The committee, in the case of a multiple employer welfare arrangement within the meaning of Section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”);
The cooperative or association that establishes or maintains an applicable self-insured health plan established or maintained by a rural electric cooperative under ERISA § 3(40)(B)(iv) or rural cooperative association under ERISA 3(40)(B)(v);
The trustee, in the case of an applicable self-insured health plan established or maintained by a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association under Code § 501(c)(9) not merely serving as a funding vehicle for a plan that is established or maintained by an employer or other person;
In the case of an applicable self-insured health plan the plan sponsor of which is not previously described, the person identified by the terms of the document under which the plan is operated as the plan sponsor, or the person designated by the terms of the document under which the plan is operated as the plan sponsor for Code § 4376 purposes, provided that designation is made in writing, and that person has consented to the designation in writing, by no later than the date by which the return paying the fee under section 4376 for that plan year is required to be filed, after which date that designation for that plan year may not be changed or revoked, and provided further that a person may be designated as the plan sponsor only if the person is one of the persons establishing or maintaining the plan (for example, one of the employers that establishes or maintains the plan with one or more other employers or employee organizations); or
Where an applicable self-insured health plan sponsor is not previously and for which no identification or designation of a plan sponsor has been made under the prior paragraph the plan sponsor means, each employer that establishes or maintains the plan with respect to employees of that employer, each employee organization that establishes or maintains the plan with respect to members of that employee organization, and each board of trustees, cooperative, or association that establishes or maintains the plan.

While the fee will impact most health insurance policies and self-insured plans, the Code does exempt a few arrangements. See Code § 4376. Regulation § 46.4376-1(b)(2) construes these exemptions to include the following categories of programs:

A plan that provides benefits substantially all of which are excepted benefits for purposes of the HIPAA Portability Rules under Code § 9832(c). Pursuant to this provision, for instance, the Regulations state that a health flexible spending arrangement (health FSA) under Code § 106(c)(2)) that satisfies the requirements to be treated as an excepted benefit under Code § 9832(c) and Regulation § 54.9831–1(c)(3)(v) is not an applicable self-insured health plan. However, a health FSA that is not treated as an excepted benefit under Code § 9832(c) and Regulation § 54.9831–1(c)(3)(v) is an applicable self-insured health plan.
An employee assistance program, disease management program, or wellness program if the program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.
A plan that, as demonstrated by the facts and circumstances surrounding the adoption and operation of the plan, was designed specifically to cover primarily employees who are working and residing outside the United States (as defined in § 46.4377–1(a)(3)). See Regulation § 46.4376–1(b)(ii).

Where the same plan sponsor maintains multiple self-insured arrangements Regulation § 46.4376(b)(iii) specifies that the employer may treat two or more arrangements established or maintained by the same plan sponsor that provide accident and health coverage other than through an insurance policy and that have the same plan year as a single applicable self-insured health plan for purposes of reporting and calculating the Code § 4376 fee.

Calculation Of Self-Insured Plan Fee Under Code § 4376

Regulation § 46.4376-1 requires that a self-insured plan sponsor determine the number of covered lives for purposes of calculating the fee using on of the following methods:

The actual count method where the plan sponsor adds the totals of lives covered for each day of the plan year and divides that total by the number of days in the plan year;
The snapshot method, the plan sponsor adds the totals of lives covered on a date during the first, second, or third month of each quarter of the plan year (or more dates in each quarter if an equal number of dates is used in each quarter), and divides that total by the number of dates on which a count was made in accordance with rules set forth in the Regulations. For instance, Each date used for the second, third and fourth quarter must be within three days of the date in that quarter that corresponds to the date used for the first quarter, and all dates used must fall within the same plan year. If a plan sponsor uses multiple dates for the first quarter, the plan sponsor must use dates in the second, third, and fourth quarters that correspond to each of the dates used for the first quarter or are within three days of such corresponding dates, and all dates used must fall within the same plan year. The 30th and 31st day of a month are treated as the last day of the month for purposes of determining the corresponding date for any month that has fewer than 31 days. The number of lives covered on a designated date using this method may be determined using either the snapshot factor method or the snapshot count method set forth in the Regulations. In the snapshot factor method, the number of lives covered on a date is equal to the sum of: (1) the number of participants with self-only coverage on that date; plus (2) the number of participants with coverage other than self-only coverage on the date multiplied by 2.35. In the snapshot count method, the number of lives covered on a date equals the actual number of lives covered on the designated date. The plan sponsor must use the same method of calculating the average number of lives covered under the plan consistently for the duration of the plan year. However, a plan sponsor may use a different method from one plan year to the next.
The Form 5500 method, where the plan sponsor determines the average number of lives covered under a plan for a plan year as the result of the sum of the total participants covered at the beginning and the end of the plan year, as reported on the Form 5500 or Form 5500–SF for the applicable self-insured health plan, divided by 2. This method is only available if the Form 5500 is filed by the due date for payment of the fee. This means where a plan administrator extends filing beyond July 31, the plan sponsor cannot use this method.

The Regulations establish a special rule for lives covered solely by the fully-insured options under an applicable self-insured health plan. Under this special rule, when an applicable self-insured health plan provides accident and health coverage through fully insured options and self-insured options, the plan sponsor is permitted to disregard the lives that are covered solely under the fully-insured options in determining the lives covered taken into account for the actual count method, the snapshot method, and the Form 5500 method.

As for insured plans, the Regulations also provide special rules for determining the fee the first year the fee is in effect. Under this rule, for a plan year beginning before July 11, 2012, and ending on or after October 1, 2012, a plan sponsor may determine the average number of lives covered under the plan for the plan year using any reasonable method.

Section 4375 Fee For Insurers

The fee under Code Section 4375 generally applies to issuers of a “specified health insurance policy.” Code Section 4375(c) generally defines a specified health insurance policy as any accident or health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals residing in the United States. Code Section 4377(a)(1) defines accident and health coverage as any coverage that, if provided by an insurance policy, would cause the policy to be a specified health insurance policy under Code Section 4375. See Treas. Reg. § 46.4375–1.

Policies Subject To Fee. Regulation § 46.4377–1(a) defines a “specified health insurance policy” as “any accident and health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals residing in the United States” other than those recognized as exempt by the Regulation. The Regulation makes clear that this includes any policy that provides accident and health coverage to an active employee, former employee, or qualifying beneficiary, as continuation coverage required under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) or similar continuation coverage under other Federal law or state law.

However Regulation § 46.4377-1(a)(ii) exempts the following arrangements from the definition of a specified health insurance policy.

Any insurance policy if substantially all of its coverage is of excepted benefits described in Code Section 9832(c);
Any group policy issued to an employer where the facts and circumstances show that the group policy was designed and issued specifically to cover primarily employees who are working and residing outside of the United States for purposes of Regulation § 46.4377–1(a)(3);
Any stop loss or indemnity reinsurance policy; or
Any insurance policy to the extent it provides an employee assistance program, disease management program, or wellness program if the program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.

Fee Calculation. The amount of the fee an insurer must pay for a policy for a policy year under Code § 4375 is equal to the product of the average number of lives covered under the policy for the policy year, multiplied by the applicable dollar amount for that policy year.

The applicable dollar amount multiplier is $1 for the fee due on October 1, 2013; $2 for the fee due on October 1, 2014, and the adjusted amount for fees due after October 1, 2014.

Determination Of The Average Number Of Lives Covered. To determine the average number of lives covered under a specified health insurance policy during a policy year, the Regulation requires an issuer to use one of the following methods:

The actual count method, where the issuer determines the average number of lives covered under a policy for a policy year under the actual count method by adding the total number of lives covered for each day of the policy year and dividing that total by the number of days in the policy year;
The snapshot method, where the issuer determines the average number of lives covered under a policy for a policy year by adding the totals of lives covered on a date during the first, second, or third month of each quarter (or more dates in each quarter if an equal number of dates is used for each quarter), and dividing that total by the number of dates on which a count is made. Each date used for the second, third and fourth quarters must be within three days of the date in that quarter that corresponds to the date used for the first quarter, and all dates used must be within the same policy year. If an issuer uses multiple dates for the first quarter, the issuer must use dates in the second, third, and fourth quarters that correspond to each of the dates used for the first quarter or are within three days of such corresponding dates, and all dates used must be within the same policy year. The 30th and 31st day of a month are treated as the last day of the month for purposes of determining the corresponding date for any month that has fewer than 31 days (for example, if either March 30 or March 31 is used as a counting date for a calendar year policy, June 30 is the corresponding date for the second quarter);
The member months method, where the issuer determines the average number of lives covered under all policies in effect for a calendar year based on the member months (an amount that equals the sum of the totals of lives covered on prespecified days in each month of the reporting period) reported on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) Supplemental Health Care Exhibit filed for that calendar year. Under this method, the average number of lives covered under the policies in effect for the calendar year equals the member months divided by 12; or
The state form method, where an insurer not required to file NAIC annual financial statements may determine the number of lives covered under all policies in effect for the calendar year using a form filed with the issuer’s state of domicile and a method similar to the member months method if the form reports the number of lives covered in the same manner as member months are reported on the NAIC Supplemental Health Care Exhibit. See Regulation § 46.4375–1(c)(2)(i).

Issuers must use the same method of calculating the average number of lives covered under a policy consistently for the duration of the year and must use the same method of computing lives for all policies for which a liability is reported on a Form 720, “Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return,” for a particular year. Regulation § 46.4375–1(c)(2)(ii). However, the Regulation allows an issuer that determines the average number of lives covered by using the actual count method or the snapshot method to change its method of computing the average lives covered to the snapshot method or actual count method, respectively, provided that the issuer uses the same method for computing the average lives covered for all policies for which a liability is reported on the Form 720 for that year. Regulation § 46.4375–1(c)(2).

The Regulations also impose various other special rules. For instance, the Regulations state that if the issuer elects to determine the average number of lives covered for all policies in effect during a calendar year using the member months method or the state form method, the applicable dollar amount with respect to such issuer’s policies for such calendar year is the applicable dollar amount for policy years ending on December 31 of such calendar year, except that the applicable dollar amount with respect to such an issuer’s policies for calendar year 2019 is the applicable dollar amount for policy years ending on September 30, 2019. The Regulations provide various examples of these calculations to illustrate the rules.

The Regulations also provide special rules for the first year and the last year the fee is in effect for an insurer. See Regulation § § 46.4375–1(c).

Plans, Insurers Should Evaluate Options, Plan To Pay Required Fees

The impending obligation provides yet another reason that employers and other self-insured plan sponsors, administrators, insurers, and vendors should re-evaluate their existing health plan designs and costs. Most health insurers and self-insured health plan sponsors will want not only to budget for the impending additional costs associated with these fees, but also evaluate options for mitigating their impact, as well as the costs and administrative burden of tracking and making the required filings. For instance, insurers and plan sponsors of programs subject to these new fees generally will want to evaluate which of the options for collecting the data and calculating the fees will most benefit them. Also, where plan designs used by particular employer or other plan sponsors include both insured and self-insured features, the insurer, plan sponsor and their advisors may want to consider the advisability of restructuring or redesigning plans to mitigate fees or administrative or other expenses. In all cases, parties should audit their programs to ensure that each program and its element is identified and properly taken into account to avoid inadvertent oversights resulting in penalties or other avoidable costs.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Self-Insured Health Plan Sponsors, Health Insurers Brace To Pay New ACA-Imposed Fees | Corporate Compliance, Employers, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Risk Management, Whistleblower | Tagged: Backpay, Employer, Employment, employment law, Fair Labor Standards Act, FSLA, IT, Labor Department, Minimum Wage, Technology, Wage & Hour, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1st OCR Small HIPAA Breach Settlement Shows Plans, Other Covered Entities At Risk From Small Breach Reports Too

January 3, 2013

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

Properly encrypt and protected electronic protected health information (ePHI) on laptops and in other mediums! That’s the clear message of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in its announcement of its first settlement under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule involving a breach of ePHI of fewer than 500 individuals by a HIPAA-covered entity, Hospice of North Idaho (HONI).

In announcing the settlement against HONI, OCR sent a clear message that OCR stands ready to penalize these health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their businesses associates (covered entities) when their failure to properly secure and protect ePHI on laptops or in other systems results in a breach of ePHI even when the breach affects fewer than 500 individuals.

OCR Director Leon Rodriguez reiterated OCR’s expectation that covered entities will properly encrypt ePHI on mobile or other devices in OCR’s announcement of the HONI settlement. “This action sends a strong message to the health care industry that, regardless of size, covered entities must take action and will be held accountable for safeguarding their patients’ health information.” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable.”

In light of this latest clear warning, health plans and their fiduciaries, sponsors and administrators, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should review plans, practices and data security as affecting ePHI and other protected health information on mobile and other devices.

HONI Settlement For Small Breach Notification

On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals. Read the full HONI Resolution Agreement here.

OCR opened an investigation after HONI reported to HHS that an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI of 441 patients had been stolen in June 2010. HONI team members regularly use Laptops containing ePHI their field work. Over the course of the investigation, OCR discovered that HONI had not conducted a risk analysis to safeguard ePHI or have in place policies or procedures to address mobile device security as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Since the June 2010 theft, HONI has taken extensive additional steps to improve their HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance program.

HIPAA Security & Breach Notification For ePHI

The HONI settlement is notable because it marks the first time OCR has sanctioned a covered entity as a result of an OCR investigation stemming from the covered entity’s report of a breach of unsecured protected health information involving fewer than 500 individuals under new breach notification rules added to HIPAA in 2009.

Under the originally enacted requirements of HIPAA, covered entities and their business associates are required to restrict the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and establish and administer various other policies and safeguards in relation to protected health information. Additionally, the Security Rules require specific encryption and other safeguards when covered entities collect, create, use, access, retain or disclose ePHI.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act amended HIPAA, among other things to tighten certain HIPAA requirements, expand its provisions to directly apply to business associates, as well as covered entities and to impose specific breach notification requirements. The HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more (Large Breach) to the Secretary of HHS and the media within 60 days after the discovery of the breach. Smaller breaches affecting less than 500 individuals (Small Breach) must be reported to the Secretary on an annual basis. Since the Breach Notification Rule took effect, OCR’s announced policy has been to investigate all Large Breaches and such investigations have resulted in settlements or other corrective action in relation to various Large Breaches. Until now, however, OCR has not made public any resolution agreements requiring settlement payments involving any Small Breaches.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. In fact, OCR’s first resolution agreement – reached before Congress added the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules to HIPAA – stemmed from such a breach. Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect including breaches of ePHI involving compromised health plan information. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach. Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities to properly encrypt ePHI on mobile and other devices.

Furthermore, the HONI settlement also adds to growing evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In the face of rising enforcement and fines, OCR’s initiation of HIPAA audits and other recent developments, covered entities and their business associates should tighten privacy policies, breach and other monitoring, training and other practices to reduce potential HIPAA exposures in light of recently tightened requirements and new enforcement risks.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

New OCR HIPAA Mobile Device Educational Tool

While OCR enforcement of HIPAA has significantly increased, compliance and enforcement of the encryption and other Security Rule requirements of HIPAA are a special focus of OCR.

To further promote compliance with the Breach Notification Rule as it relates to ePHI on mobile devices, OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) recently kicked off a new educational initiative, Mobile Devices: Know the RISKS. Take the STEPS. PROTECT and SECURE Health Information. The program offers health care providers and organizations practical tips on ways to protect their patients’ health information when using mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. For more information, see here. For more information on HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help monitoring HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other human resources, employee benefit, or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

December 27, 2012

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

Latest Enforcement Shows Commitment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

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

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

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

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

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

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Peter Madoff 10 Sentence For Defrauding ERISA Plans Reminder Manage Plan Investment Responsibilities

December 27, 2012

Peter Madoff (Madoff), the former Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Managing Director of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMI), was sentenced on December 20, 2012 to 10 years in prison after he pled guilty among other things, to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, tax fraud, mail fraud, ERISA fraud and falsifying records of an investment adviser.

In addition to the prison term, Madoff also was sentenced to one year of supervised release, ordered to pay a $200 special assessment, and ordered to forfeit $143.1 billion, including all of his real and personal property. This amount represents all of the investor funds paid into BLMIS from 1996 – the start of Madoff’s involvement in the conspiracy – through December 2008.

As part of the defendant’s forfeiture, the Government previously entered into a settlement with Madoff’s family that requires the forfeiture of all of his wife Marion’s and daughter Shana’s assets, and assets belonging to other family members. The surrendered assets include, among other things, several homes, a Ferrari and more than $10 million in cash and securities. Marion Madoff was left with approximately $771,733 to live on for the rest of her life.

Madoff’s Sentence Part of Continuing Actions Seeking To Rectify BLMIS Fraud

Among other things, the Superseding Information against Madoff charged that the overt acts in the conspiracy count also included, among other things, making false statements to investors about BLMIS’s compliance program and the nature and scope of its Investment Advisory business. Madoff pled guilty in June 2012. He was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Peter Madoff was a gatekeeper, who was supposed to guard against fraud, but instead enabled it – facilitating his brother Bernie’s breathtaking scheme by falsifying compliance records and lying to both regulators and clients of BLMIS. The decade he will spend in prison and the disgorgement of his assets are a just result. Our efforts to hold to account anyone and everyone who played a role in this unprecedented Ponzi scheme continue.”

According to the Superseding Information to which Madoff pled guilty and other court filings:

Madoff was employed at BLMIS from 1965 through December 2008. Beginning in 1969, he became the Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) and Senior Managing Director of BLMIS. In his role as CCO, Madoff created false and misleading BLMIS compliance documents, as well as false reports that were filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that materially misstated the nature and scope of BLMIS’s Investment Advisory (“IA”) business.
As CCO, Madoff created numerous false compliance documents in which he stated that he had performed compliance reviews of the trading in the BLMIS IA business on a regular basis, when in reality, the reviews were never performed. The false statements were designed to mislead regulators, auditors, and IA clients.
In August 2006, BLMIS registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. As a registered investment adviser, on at least an annual basis, BLMIS was required to file forms with the SEC that are used as part of the oversight process of investment advisers. Madoff was integrally involved with both the SEC registration process and in the creation of the forms, known as “Forms ADV,” which were materially false and misleading. The numerous false statements in the Forms ADV created the false appearance that BLMIS’s IA business had a small number of highly sophisticated clients and far fewer assets under management than was actually the case. Madoff also misrepresented that he, as CCO, ensured that reviews of the IA trading were being performed.
From 1998 through 2008, Madoff engaged in a tax fraud scheme involving the transfer of wealth within the Madoff family in ways that allowed him to avoid paying millions of dollars in required taxes to the IRS. Most, if not all of the “wealth,” came directly or indirectly from IA client funds held at BLMIS. The schemes in which he engaged also allowed Bernard L. Madoff to evade his tax obligations.
The methods by which Madoff engaged in tax fraud included the following:
Madoff also arranged for his wife to have a “no-show” job at BLMIS from which she received between approximately $100,000 to $160,000 per year in salary, a 401(k), and health benefits to which she was not entitled.
In December 2008, when the collapse of BLMIS was virtually certain, Madoff agreed with others to send the $300 million that remained in the IA accounts to preferred employees, family members and friends. BLMIS collapsed before the funds were ever disbursed. On December 10, 2008, one day prior to BLMIS’s collapse, Madoff also withdrew $200,000 from BLMIS for his personal use.
Madoff received approximately $15,700,000 from Bernard L. Madoff and his wife, and executed sham promissory notes to make it appear that the transfers were loans, in order to avoid paying taxes;
Madoff gave approximately $9,900,000 to family members, and in order to avoid paying taxes, executed sham promissory notes to make it appear that the transfers of these funds were loans;
Madoff did not pay taxes on approximately $7,750,000 that he received from BLMIS;
Madoff received approximately $16,800,000 from Bernard L. Madoff from two sham trades, and disguised the proceeds of the trades as long-term stock transactions in order to take advantage of the lower tax rate for long-term capital gains;
Madoff charged approximately $175,000 in personal expenses to a corporate American Express card and did not report those expenses as income.

Madoff Victim Compensation Process Continues

In addition to the sentencing of Madoff, the Government has taken steps to clear the way to begin distributing assets forfeited by Peter Madoff in connection with the victim compensation process by filing a motion requesting that the Court find restitution to be impracticable, A similar motion was granted by United States Circuit Judge Denny Chin, who as a United States District Judge sentenced Bernard L. Madoff in 2009. The Department of Justice intends to return the assets forfeited as a result of the Madoff fraud to victims through the remission process.

Richard C. Breeden was retained to serve as Special Master on behalf of the Department of Justice to administer the process of compensating the victims of the Madoff fraud with the forfeited funds. A former chairman of the SEC, Mr. Breeden is Chairman of Richard C. Breeden & Co., which has been involved in (among other things) the administration and distribution of securities fraud claims since 1996. Among other things, Mr. Breeden has served as Corporate Monitor of WorldCom, Inc. and KPMG under its deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Mr. Breeden also served as remission special master in connection with the fraud committed through Adelphia Communications Corporation. In April 2012, more than $728 million forfeited in connection with this Office’s investigation and prosecution of the Adelphia fraud was distributed to approximately 8,500 victims, the largest single distribution of forfeited assets to victims in Department of Justice history.

Now that a new Special Master has been retained, and given the pledge of SIPC Trustee Irving Picard and his counsel to lend their support and resources to the new Special Master for the benefit of the fraud victims, we expect the victim claims process to begin shortly. It is anticipated that victims who filed claims in the SIPA proceeding will not have to refile their claims to be eligible for remission. New information about the remission Special Master, and information about the victim claims process, will be posted on the Office’s Madoff website at http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/vw_cases/madoff.html as soon as it becomes available, along with a link to a dedicated website Mr. Breeden’s firm will establish in connection with the remission proceedings.

Investment Advisors and Others With Discretion Over Funds Should Exercise Fiduciary Care

While the Madorf scandle represents an exceptionally large and long-standing stream of mishandling of employee benefit funds, the investigations and prosecutions also serve as a reminder of the need to carefully comply with the fiduciary responsibility and other requirements of ERISA and other laws to investment advisors and other employee benefit plan asset service providers, plan committees and fiduciaries and the plan sponsors, boards and other individuals responsible for investing or handling employee benefit monies or choosing the parties that possess and exercise that discretion.

ERISA generally requires that plan asset investments be made prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Service providers or others with discretionary responsibiliity or that are investment managers of plan assets must be prudently selected based on careful credentialing and other procedures. e No prohibited transactions should be permitted. Fees and other compensation must be set appropriately and properly reported in accordance with ERISA’s fee disclosure rules. The actions and performance of parties investing in plan assets and their investment performance must be reviewed and monitored prudently. Proper bonding must be maintained. Concerns and questions about these activities must be timely investigated in a prudent manner. Failure to properly conduct these and other ERISA fiduciary responsibilities can expose responsible parties to personal liability for losses, profits improperly realized, a fiduciary administrative penalties, disqualification to serve in plan fiduciary or other positions, and attorneys fees and other costs of recovery, as well as in certain cases like the Madorff fraud, criminal prosecution.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to monitor or respond to evolving laws and regulations, drafting or administering programs, resolving or defending audits, investigations or disputes or other employee benefit, human resources, safety, compliance 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 Update and 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 register to 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.com 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.

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ESOP, Other Employee Plan Investments In Company Stock Land Plans, Fiduciaries, Sponsors & Others In Hot Water

December 10, 2012

Companies that sponsor employee benefit plans that have purchased or own stock in their sponsor beware. Declines in the stock value of company stock purchased by employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) or other employee benefit plans in their plan sponsor have a growing number of plans and the plan sponsors, sponsoring company owners and management, plan trustees and other plan fiduciaries in hot water with the Department of Labor. ESOP or other employee plans that have purchased or allow investments in company stock and their sponsors, fiduciaries and advisors should carefully review for defensibility the current stock value, the purchase price and analysis supporting that purchase and other aspects of these investments of plan assets and take carefully documented action to prove the prudence and other appropriateness of the investment and continued retention of the investment in these assets.

Company Stock Investments Carry Special ERISA Risks

Purchases of company stock by an ESOP or other employee benefit plan can create a wide range of risks under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). When making investment or other decisions under an employee benefit plan, the general fiduciary duty standards of ERISA § 404 generally require plan fiduciaries to act prudently and solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. Meanwhile, except in certain narrow circumstances and subject to fulfillment of ERISA § 404, the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA § 406 among other things prohibits plan fiduciaries from causing the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction is a direct or indirect:

Sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between the plan and a party in interest;
Furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest;
Transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of a party in interest, of any assets of the plan; or
Acquisition, on behalf of the plan, of any employer security or employer real property in violation of section 1107 (a) of this title.

Stock Drops Create Rising Exposures For Plans Invested In Company Stock

Amid economic downturns or other situations where the stock value of company held by plans significantly lower than the price the plan paid for the stock, the Labor Department, plaintiffs in private lawsuits or both may bring “stock drop” or other lawsuits against the plan, its sponsor and its officers and board members, its fiduciaries and others for breach of fiduciary duties under these rules. See e.g., Enron v. Tittle, 463 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2006); In Re: BP p.l.c. ERISA Litig., No. 4:10-cv-4214 (S.D. Texas); Vivian v. Worldcom (N.D. Cal. 2002). Since the sponsoring company is a party-in-interest of the plan, using plan assets to purchase company stock or other activities resulting in the inclusion of company stock among the plan assets held by the plan creates presumptions of impropriety that impose higher than usual burdens upon the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries to prove the appropriateness of the transaction. See e.g., Pfeil v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012).

The filing of stock drop cases tends to rise and fall in reflection to the economic times. Following the economic downturn in 2002, federal courts saw a surge in stop drop case challenges as well as Labor Department enforcement actions. The number of these cases dropped as the economy improved later in the decade only to rise again between 2010 and the present in response to the current economic crisis.

Tough Economic Times Fueled Stock Drops Creating Rising Risks & Enforcement

The latest economic downturn is fueling resurgence in these “stock drop” challenges. Fifteen stop drop lawsuits were filed during 2010 and 2011. Additional suits and Labor Department stop drop challenges have emerged this year.

In Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., No. 11-1497 (6th Cir. 2012), for instance, plaintiffs alleged various fiduciaries allegedly breached their duties under ERISA by allowing employer stock to be offered as a 401(k) plan investment option while the company was facing a precarious financial situation. The Griffin court overruled the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants offering of company stock to plan participants made ERISA’s “safe harbor” (Section 404(c)) provision for participant self-directed investments inapplicable. The Sixth Circuit ruled “[a]fter reviewing the factual allegations in the complaint – which go far beyond documenting a simple drop in stock price to recite announcements from Flagstar itself, statements by analysts and financial media publications, and actions taken by Flagstar suggesting a precarious financial situation– we must conclude that the complaint raises a plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty.”

In addition to private class action lawsuits like Griffin, plans holding company stock, their sponsors, owners, management and fiduciaries also need to be ready to defend against investigations and enforcement by the Labor Department, which often zealously investigates and takes enforcement action against plans, their fiduciaries, sponsors, company boards and management and others for losses to plan asset values resulting due to the investment or retention of investments by their plans in company stock. See also Labor Department Backs M&I Employees In Stock-Plan Suit.

Labor Department Suits Show Particular Risks For ESOPs

Over the past year, the Labor Department has been particularly aggressive in taking action when the value of company stock purchased or held by employee stock purchase plans or “ESOPS” drops significantly.

Rembar

For instance, the purchase by the Rembar Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“Rembar Plan”) of all the stock of its sponsor, Rembar Inc. has landed the trust company that served as the Plan’s independent fiduciary and Rembar Inc.’s owner and Chief Executive Officer in hot water.

The Labor Department is suing Rembar Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer and owner, Frank Firor, First Bankers Trust Services Inc. and the Rembar Plan to recover losses that the Labor Department charges Rembar Plan participants suffered because the Rembar Plan paid too much when it purchased all of the stock of Rembar Inc.

Rembar Inc. manufactures and distributes precision parts made from refractory metals. The Labor Department lawsuit alleges that, in June 2005, First Bankers Trust Services allowed the Rembar Plan to purchase 100 percent of the company’s stock from Firor and Firor’s relatives for $15.5 million. A Labor Department investigation found that First Bankers Trust Services failed to comply with its duty to understand the valuation report that set the purchase price, identify and question assumptions in the report, and verify that the conclusions in the report were consistent with the company’s financial data. As a result of First Bankers Trust Services’ failure to comply with its fiduciary duties, the Labor Department claims the Rembar Plan overpaid for the stock and suffered losses. The suit seeks, among other things, to recover jointly from First Bankers Trust Services and Firor all losses suffered by the Rembar Plan.

Maran

Similarly, the Labor Department also has filed an ERISA stock drop lawsuit against the Maran Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Maran Plan), First Bankers Trust Services Inc. and others to recover losses suffered by participants.

According to the pleadings, First Bankers Trust Services was hired as an independent fiduciary and trustee in connection with the company’s ESOP to decide whether, and at what price, to purchase shares of Maran Inc. from majority shareholders. The suit charges First Bankers Trust Services violated ERISA in 2006 when it approved the ESOP’s purchase of 49 percent of the outstanding stock of Maran Inc. for about $71 million, which was more than the fair market value. The Labor Department claims that as a result of the purchase of overvalued stock, the Maran Plan participants suffered significant losses. The suit seeks to recover all losses and have First Bankers Trust Services enjoined from serving as a fiduciary to ESOP plans.

Parrot

Likewise, the Labor Department in April sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover losses suffered by participants in the Parrot Cellular Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Parrot Plan).

The suit names as a defendant Dennis Webb, the principal owner of Entrepreneurial Ventures Inc. (EVI), which operates Parrot Cellular telephone retail stores in northern and central California, and is the sponsor of the Parrot Plan; EVI executives Matthew Fidiam and J. Robert Gallucci; Consulting Fiduciaries Inc., an Illinois company that served as the independent fiduciary and investment manager for the Parrot Plan in 2002 when the Parrot Plan bought 90 percent of EVI stock.

According to the pleadings, the Parrot Plan paid for more than $28 million to buy approximately 90 percent of EVI’s stock in 2002. Around the same time as the stock purchase, EVI also set aside $4 million pursuant to a deferred compensation agreement with Webb and entered into a second executive compensation agreement with Webb for $12 million.

The Labor Department charges defendants allegedly violated ERISA by rejecting their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to the plan, engaging in self-dealing, permitting or engaging in prohibited transactions, and failing to monitor the performance of the plan’s appraiser when they caused or permitted the Parrot Plan to purchase EVI stock for more than fair market value. The suit also charges that Webb enriched himself by millions of dollars at the expense of the plan and its participants because a reasonable value for the company as of November 2002 was far less than the amounts the Parrot Plan paid for the stock and the total deferred compensation agreements entered into with Webb.

In addition to seeking the recovery of all losses to the Parrot Plan resulting from the above violations, the Labor Department’s suit seeks the disgorgement of unjust profits from Webb that he received from the two deferred compensation agreements and from his sale of EVI stock to the Parrot Plan.

Plans, Sponsors and Fiduciaries Must Act Continously To Manage Risks

These and other actions send a stong message for ESOP and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors about the need to continuously and prudently evaluate and monitor the investment of plan assets in company stock,the analysis and decisions about whether to continue to keep and offer this stock under the plan, as well as the qualifications, credentials and conduct of the fiduciaries and others empowered to influence these decisions. The Labor Department’s statement in announcing the Parrot litigation sums up the messages from these cases. “Plan officials are required by law to manage the ESOP in a careful, prudent manner and to act solely to benefit the plan’s participants,” said Jean Ackerman, director of EBSA’s San Francisco Regional Office, which conducted the investigation. “This action underscores the department’s commitment to protect the benefits that employers promise to their employees.” Plan fiduciaries, sponsors and their management, service providers and consultants participating in these activities need to both act with care and carefully document their actions to position to defend potential challenges.

Plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries also should ensure that appropriate steps are taken in selecting the fiduciaries, management and service providers responsible for administering or overseeing the administration of their plans, the selection of vendors, and other critical details. Appropriate background checks and other credentialing should be done both at commencement and periodically. Bonding and fiduciary liability insurance should be arranged and reviewed periodically along with their activities. Documentation of these and other steps should be carefully created and preserved.

When and if a change in stock value or other event that could compromise the investment occurs, consideration should be given as to the responsibilities that such events create under ERISA. As company leaders often have dual responsibilities to both the company and the plan, it is important that the company sponsoring the plan, its management and owners learn in advance how these responsibilities impact each other so that they are aware of the issues and have a good understanding of responsibilities and options as situations evolve.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on ESOP, Other Employee Plan Investments In Company Stock Land Plans, Fiduciaries, Sponsors & Others In Hot Water | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: 404, 406, defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, exclusive benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Prudence, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Confirm Qualified Plans Updated By Reviewing Against 2012 Required Plan Qualification Requirements Change List

December 9, 2012

Qualified plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors and other service providers should review the 2012 Cumulative List of Changes in Plan Qualification Requirements (2012 Cumulative List) in Notice 2012-76 to identify any required or recommended changes to promote continued fulfillment of applicable qualification requirements.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes a cumulative list annually to guide plan sponsors and practitioners submitting qualifed plan determination letter applications for plans during the upcoming year. The 2012 Cumulative Listinforms plan sponsors of issues the Service has specifically identified for review in determining whether a plan filing in Cycle C has been properly updated. Specifically, the 2012 Cumulative List reflects law changes under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA ’06), Pub. L. 109-280; the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 110-28; the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (HEART Act), Pub. L. 110-245; the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA), Pub. L. 110-458; the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (SBJA), Pub. L. 111-240; the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 (PRA 2010), Pub. L. No. 111-192; and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141.

The 2012 Cumulative List sets forth guidance and regulations implementing these requirements and provides certain model amendment language. 2012 Retirement Plan Notices are published here.

The IRS intends that the 2012 Cumulative List will be used by plan sponsors and practitioners submitting determination letter applications for plans during the period beginning February 1, 2013 and ending January 31, 2014. In order to be qualified, a plan must comply with all relevant qualification requirements, not just those on the 2012 Cumulative List including those enacted or effective after publication of the 2012 Cumulative List. The list of changes in the Cumulative List does not extend the deadline for amending a qualified plan to comply with any statutory, regulatory, or guidance changes.

Plans using 2012 Cumulative List will primarily be single employer individually designed defined contribution plans and single employer individually designed defined benefit plans that are in Cycle C, and § 414(d) governmental plans (including governmental multiemployer or governmental multiple employer plans) that choose to file during Cycle C. Generally an individually designed plan is in Cycle C if the last digit of the employer identification number of the plan sponsor is 3 or 8. In addition, the 2012 Cumulative List will be used by sponsors of defined benefit pre-approved plans (that is, defined benefit plans that are master and prototype (M&P) or volume submitter (VS) plans) for the second submission under the remedial amendment cycle described in Rev. Proc. 2007-44.

The IRS issued Notice 2012-76 in conjunction with the determination letter program for individually designed plans eligible for Cycle C. The IRS is scheduled to accept determination letter applications for Cycle C individually designed plans from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014. In addition, the Service will start accepting opinion and advisory letter applications for defined benefit pre-approved plans beginning on February 1, 2013. The 12-month submission period for non-mass submitter sponsors and practitioners, word-for-word identical adopters, and M&P minor modifier placeholder applications will end on January 31, 2014. The 9-month submission period for mass submitters will end on October 31, 2013.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

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 Update and 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

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

Comments Off on Confirm Qualified Plans Updated By Reviewing Against 2012 Required Plan Qualification Requirements Change List | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: defined benefit plan, Employer, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

December 1, 2012

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

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

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

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

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

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

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

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

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

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

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

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

November 30, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

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

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

November 28, 2012

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

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

FLSA Generally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overtime & Other Wage & Hour Enforcement Risks Rising

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

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

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

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

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, DOL, Justice Department, PBGC, private plaintiff or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

SLP Hosts Complimentary 11/27 WEB Briefing On 11/20 ACA Wellness, Pre-Ex & Essential Benefits Guidance

November 26, 2012

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers, brokers and consultants and others involved in the design and administration of employment-based group health plans to take part in a complimentary Health Care Executive Study Group internet briefing on new and proposed guidance interpreting audit pre-existing condition limitation, wellness and disease management and essential health benefit rules of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) published by Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services on November 20, 2012 to be conducted by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

How To Participate

To take part in this complimentary 30 minute briefing, please follow the following steps:

Register here before Noon Central Daylight Time on November 27; then
Join the meeting on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 by 12:00 PM Central Standard Time by connecting over the internet at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/606483282
To listen to the presentation, either:
- Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) – a headset is recommended;
- Call in using your telephone using the following:
  - Dial +1 (312) 878-3082
  - Access Code: 606-483-282
  - Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
  - GoToMeeting®[*] Meeting ID: 606-483-282

Persons having questions or wishing to get more information about participation in the briefing should send an e-mail here or call (214) 452.8297.

About The November 20, 2012 ACA Guidance

The briefing with discuss highlights of the guidance that Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services issued published on November 20, 2012 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;
A proposed rule outlining policies and standards for coverage of essential health benefits and companion letter sent to states on the flexibility in implementing the essential health benefits in Medicaid; and
A proposed rule implementing and expanding employment-based wellness programs under ACA.

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.

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 complete arrangements and guidance governing the implementation and enforcement of the ACA health care reforms scheduled to take effect and to tweak guidance on provisions already effective under the law.

Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer To Conduct Briefing

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 watch 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 author of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.

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

[*] GoToMeeting® Online Meetings Made Easy®.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, Employers, Essential health benefits, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, pre-existing conditions, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rare Court Order Telling Union To Stop Filing Grievances Example Of Employer Risks When Caught Between Competiting Unions

November 23, 2012

A district court judge in Washington has ordered the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) to stop processing grievances and filing lawsuits against a competitive union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and, pending the outcome of further litigation, employers assigning work of plugging in, unplugging and monitoring refrigerated shipping containers at the Port of Portland to IBEW. The litigation between the two competing unions shows how employers can get caught in risky, no-win liability exposures as a result of power battles between competing unions over the right to represent workers performing services for the employers.

The injunctive order steps from a dispute between both unions over which union is entitled to represent a group of workers. Both unions claim the work, citing various contracts and collective bargaining agreements. In August 2012, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision concluding that the employees represented by the IBEW are entitled to the work. Despite that ruling, the ILWU and two of its locals have continued to file and process grievances against employers serving as carriers at the port, seeking lost wages for work assigned to the IBEW. The ILWU also filed a claim against the IBEW in federal court under the Labor-Management Relations Act.

In granting the petition for injunctive relief from the NLRB’s Regional Office in Seattle late Wednesday, November 22, 2012, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon found that, by filing grievances and seeking enforcement of subsequent awards despite the Board’s decision, the ILWU had the unlawful secondary object of pressuring shipping carriers to stop doing business with the Port of Portland. He enjoined the union from filing, processing, maintaining, prosecuting, or threatening grievances or new lawsuits in the matter against the union as well as the carrier employers. With respect to the dispute with IBEW, the court ruled that the continued filing of the grievances against the IBEW constituted an unfair labor practice because the NLRB ruling already had recognized the IBEW as the authorized representative of the covered employees performing the work.

Concerning his decisions to also bar the ILWU from suing and filing charges against the employing carriers that have been caught in the war between the two unions, the Court issued a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the litigation. The court noted that the question of whether the NLRB ruling prohibited the carrier employers from subcontracting work covered by the NLRB order could not be permanently resolved based in the facts on the record, but that the IBEW had produced sufficient evidence of likely success on merits and irreparable harm to justify the court’s issuance of a temporary injunction.

While federal courts rarely enjoin unions under the National Labor Relations Act, the federal court in this matter found in light of the NLRB ruling in favor of the other union, the court’s decision in favor of the IBEW allows the IBEW to move forward for the time being as the representative of the workers. Concurrently, the court’s decision allows the employers caught between the two unions to continue operations for the time being by assigning work to the IBEW workers unless and until the ILWU proves its entitlement to that work.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your 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 Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney and 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.

Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other labor and 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 Update and 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

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

Comments Off on Rare Court Order Telling Union To Stop Filing Grievances Example Of Employer Risks When Caught Between Competiting Unions | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: Employer, NLRA, NLRB, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

November 9, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

FLSA Wage & Hour Violations Can Carry Big Liability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Carolina Ponchos Restaurants Pay $486,000 Backpay Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

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

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

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

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other legal challenges to your organization’s existing pay, workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872 .

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

October 17, 2012

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

FLSA & Other Minimum Wage & Overtime Violations Risky

The FLSA requires that properly classify covered non-exempt workers and pay the workers at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all regular hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers treating workers performing serves as exempt from the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and other rules generally bear the burden of proving that the worker either is not properly classified as a common law employee or qualifies as exempt from the FLSA requirements under one of the applicable FLSA exemptions. For non-exempt employees, the applicable employer also generally is responsible for collecting and maintaining records of hours worked and its proper payment of minimum wage and overtime in accordance with the FLSA requirements. In addition to these federal rules, employers generally also are subject to various state minimum wage and overtime requirements. Beyond the risk of enforcement by the DOL and state labor officials, employers violating these rules also generally run the risk of lawsuits brought by employees or groups of employees, seeking actual damages, attorneys fees and costs and punitive or other awards.

TSI Action Illustrates Big Risks of Misclassification Or Other FLSA Violations

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

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

TSI Settlement Highlights Rising Risks

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

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

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

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

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

Employers Should Strengthen Worker Classification & Pay Practices For Defensibility

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

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

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

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to an IRS, Labor Department or other agency or private plaintiff legal challenges to your organization’s existing workforce classification, pay or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872 .

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Tighten Disability Discrimination Defenses As National Disability Employment Awareness Month Promises To Whip Up New Claims & Awareness

October 1, 2012

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. With the Administration expected to step up further its already substantial educational outreach to the disabled and their advocates, U.S. employers should brace for this month’s celebration to fuel even more disability discrimination claims and other activity by the disabled and their activists.

Since taking office, President Obama has make enforcing and expanding the rights of the disabled in employment and other areas a leading priority.

In his proclamation 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. See, e.g. October Is National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM).

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 the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 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 experienced 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 prove 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 part 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.

Recent enforcement, regulatory and other activities by the EEOC show that the EEOC is enthusiastically moving forward to exercise its regulatory and enforcement powers under these enhanced ADA provisions to tighten requirements for employers and to enforce its rules. See e.g., Leprino Foods To Pay $550K To Settle OFCCP Charge Pre-Hire Screening Test Illegally Discriminated « As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released; Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries; Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Rising 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 more 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.

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. The readiness of OFCCP to enforce its rules is illustrated by the settlement of an OFCCP action filed against federal contractor Nash Finch Co. (Nash Finch) announceed last week. Under the settlement, Nash Finch to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to certain women applicants who OFCCP charged Nash rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company’s distribution facility in Lumberton, Minnesota. See Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

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 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.

GINA & Other Medical Information Nondiscrimination & Privacy Risks

Employers also need to use care to ensure that their hiring and other employment practices, as well as their employee benefits, workers’ compensation and wellness practices are up to date and properly managed to mitigate exposures under laws like the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the ADA’s medical information privacy requirements, as well as the privacy and nondiscrimination rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and other relevant federal and state laws.

Signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008 and in effect since November 21, 2009, for instance, Title VII of GINA amended the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and to restrict 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 now 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:

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 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. Under these HIPAA and GINA rules, health plans generally may not make certain medical inquiries or discriminate against employees or their family members based on family or individual medical history or genetic information. In addition, health plans and others are required to safeguard personal medical information and may only share that information only under very limited circumstances requiring specific documentation be in place and that the parties can prove that the access and use of that information is appropriately restricted. Violation of these and other rules can have significant civil and in some cases even criminal liabilities for companies, plans, plan fiduciaries and company officials that take part in violations of these rules.

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 have 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.

All U.S. 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.

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 appropriately assess and identify 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 management might be tempted to assume fall outside the ADA’s scope.

Likewise, businesses should be ready 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 genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of GINA, the health care privacy rules of the HIPAA, and the medical record privacy rules of the ADA. Particular care should be used when planning wellness, health risk assessment, work-related injury, family or other medical leave or related programs, all of which raise particular risks and concerns.

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 should exercise additional compliance and risk management efforts beyond these generally recommended steps. 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 and/or employee practices in response to the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of help 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 469.767.8872.

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 meet their business and operational goals 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 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 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.

Comments Off on Tighten Disability Discrimination Defenses As National Disability Employment Awareness Month Promises To Whip Up New Claims & Awareness | ADA, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Disability Plans, Discrimination, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, VEVRRA | Tagged: ADA, Disability, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, GINA, Human Resources, Rehabilitation Act, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

USI Advisors Will Pay $1.27 Million To Settle Charges It Violated ERISA Fee Disclosure Requirements

August 23, 2012

USI Advisors Inc. (USI) will pay $1,265,608.70 to 13 pension plans to resolve charges it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to properly disclose 12b-1 fees it collected off of fund investments. The complaint behind the settlement reflects the commitment of the U.S Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) to enforcing Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fee disclosure and other requirements against service providers to employee benefit plans. With regulations tightening, the tough economy driving greater scrutiny of plan investments, expenditures and performance, and enforcement rising, plan vendors, and the employee benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries responsible for their engagement, compensation and oversight need to ensure the adequacy of their processes for deciding and reporting compensation, as well as the qualification, selection and oversight of vendors and fiduciaries generally.

USI Settlement

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) USI, fiduciary investment adviser made investments in mutual funds on behalf of ERISA-covered defined benefit plan clients and received 12b-1 fees from those funds. A 12b-1 fee is paid by a mutual fund out of fund assets to cover certain expenses. USI Advisors failed to fully disclose the receipt of the 12b-1 fees, and to use those fees for the benefit of the plans either by directly crediting the amounts to the plans or by offsetting other fees the plans would be obligated to pay the company.

“If you, as an investment adviser, are a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to plan investments in mutual funds, you cannot use your fiduciary authority to receive an additional fee or to receive compensation from third parties for your own personal account in transactions involving plan assets. We are very pleased that this settlement addresses the problems we identified with USI’s practices and restores funds to the plans and their participants,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for employee benefits security. “We are also very pleased that recently finalized fee disclosure regulations issued by the Labor Department will require fiduciaries like USI to be more transparent about the fees they receive when dealing with their plan clients.”

Under the terms of the settlement, USI Advisors has agreed not to provide bundled investment advisory and actuarial services to any ERISA-covered defined benefit plan client without first entering into a written agreement, contract or letter of understanding that specifies the services provided and whether the company or its affiliates will act as a fiduciary to those plans. USI Advisors also will provide to clients a description of all compensation and fees received, in any form, from any source, involving any investment or transaction related to them.

The alleged violations in this case occurred between 2004 and 2010. USI Advisors is a wholly owned subsidiary of USI Consulting Group, a Goldman Sachs Capital Partners Co.

The investigation conducted by EBSA as part of the agency’s Consultant/Adviser Project, highlights the need for employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors alike to properly identify and report all vendor compensation received by employee benefit plan investment advisors and other service providers in compliance with ERISA’s fee disclosure and other requirements. The Consultant/Adviser Project targets vendors and advisors to employee benefit plans for review, and where applicable, enforcement action when service providers violate ERISA’s requirements. EBSA has made misconduct by consultants, advisors and other service providers a priority as part of its broader emphasis on enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility and reporting requirements.

Tightening Rules, Enforcement & Tough Times Driving Risks

The EBSA’s announcement of the USI settlement comes as it continues to move forward to strengthen the transparency of vendor compensation and other fiduciary regulations and enforcement. Just shortly before today’s announcement, EBSA recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

EBSA’s final fee disclosure regulation[i] published on requires plan administrators to make to disclose specified information about retirement plan fees and expenses to participants and beneficiaries. The regulation requires plan administrators to give participants and beneficiaries more informationm about administrative and investment fees and expenses in their 401(k) plans.

EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02, which provided guidance to its field enforcement personnel in question and answer format on the obligations of plan administrators under the fee disclosure regulation on May 7, 2012. In response to questions and concerns about statements in Question 30 regarding brokerage windows and other arrangements that enable plan participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 which supersedes Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02 by modifying its provisions about brokerage windows and inviting more public comments for EBSA to use to consider further clarification of this guidance.

As did its predecessor, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R specifies that while the fee disclosure regulation covers “brokerage windows,” “self-directed brokerage accounts,” and other similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, its coverage of brokerage windows is limited to the disclosure requirements in paragraph (c) of the regulation relating to plan-related information. The disclosure requirements for investment-related information in paragraph (d) of the regulation do not apply to brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, and similar arrangements or to any investment selected by a participant or beneficiary that is not designated by the plan (i.e., any investments made through the window, account, or arrangement).

Beyond meeting the technicalities of the fee disclosure requirements, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and vendors should also ensure that their selection, oversight, determination of compensation and other dealings with plan vendors and consultants meet the general fiduciary responsibility, prohibited transaction, bonding and other requriements of ERISA, as well as any applicable securities and tax requirements.

Through its participant fee disclosure and other stepped up fiduciary regulations and enforcement, EBSA is sending clear signals that it stands ready to investigate and take action against service providers or others that charge excessive fees, failure to adequately justify or appropriately disclose fees or other compensation from plan transactions, or other fiduciary protections of ERISA. In the face of these requirements, plan fiduciaries, sponsors, advisors and vendors should carefully review the appropriateness of compensation received or promised to plan vendors, as well as the adequacy of practices for identifying and reporting that compensation and the selection and oversight of the vendors receiving that compensation.

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 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.

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 Update and 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 from Ms. Stamer here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Other Resources

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

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Defined Contribution Plans, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, Income Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans | Tagged: 401(k) plans, brokerage accounts, compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, fee disclosure regulation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Management, Plan Sponosr, Retirement Plans, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Reminded To Confirm Credentials & Bonding For Internal Staff, Plan Fidiciaries & Vendors Dealing With Benefits

August 13, 2012

Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans and officers, directors, employees and others acting as fiduciaries with respect to these employee benefit plans should take steps to confirm that all of the appropriate fiduciary bonds required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) are in place, that all employee benefit plans sponsored are appropriately covered, and that all individuals serving in key positions requiring bonding are covered and appropriately qualified to serve in that capacity under ERISA and the terms of the bond. Adequate attention to these concerns not only is a required component of ERISA’s fiduciary compliance, it also may provide invaluable protection if a dishonesty or other fiduciary breach results in a loss or other exposure.

ERISA generally requires that every employee benefit plan fiduciary, as well as every other person who handles funds or other property of a plan (a “plan official”), be bonded if they have some discretionary control over a plan or the assets of a related trust. While some narrow exceptions are available to this bonding requirement, these exceptions are very narrow and apply only if certain narrow criteria are met. Plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries should take steps to ensure that all of the bonding requirements applicable to their employee benefit plans are met at least annually. Monitoring these compliance obligations is important not only for the 401(k) and other retirement plans typically associated with these requirements, but also for self-insured medical and other ERISA-covered employee benefit plans. This process of credentialing persons involved with the plan and auditing bonding generally should begin with adopting a written policy requiring bonding and verification of credentials and that that appropriate bonds are in place for all internal personnel and outside service providers.

Steps should be taken to ensure that the required fiduciary bonds are secured in sufficient amounts and scope to meet ERISA’s requirements. In addition to confirming the existence and amount of the fiduciary bonds, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should confirm that each employee plan for which bonding is required is listed in the bond and that the bond covers all individuals or organizations that ERISA requires to be bonded. For this purpose, the review should verify the sufficiency and adequacy of bonding in effect for both internal personnel as well as outside service providers. In the case of internal personnel, the adequacy of the bonds should be reviewed annually to ensure that bond amounts are appropriate. Unless a service provider provides a legal opinion that adequately demonstrates that an ERISA bonding exemption applies, plan sponsors and fiduciaries also should require that third party service providers provide proof of appropriate bonding as well as to contract to be bonded in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws, to provide proof of their bonded status or documentation of their exemption, and to provide notice of events that could impact on their bonded status. When verifying the bonding requirements, it also is a good idea to conduct a criminal background check and other prudent investigation to reconfirm the credentials and suitability of individuals and organizations serving in fiduciary positions or otherwise acting in a capacity covered by ERISA’s bonding requirements. ERISA generally prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from serving, and prohibits plan sponsors, fiduciaries or others from knowingly hiring, retaining, employing or otherwise allowing these convicted individuals during or for the 13-year period after the later of the conviction or the end of imprisonment, to serve as:

An administrator, fiduciary, officer, trustee, custodian, counsel, agent, employee, or

representative in any capacity of any employee benefit plan,

A consultant or adviser to an employee benefit plan, including but not limited to any entity whose activities are in whole or substantial part devoted to providing goods or services to any employee benefit plan, or
In any capacity that involves decision-making authority or custody or control of the moneys, funds, assets, or property of any employee benefit plan.

Because ERISA’s bonding and prudent selection of fiduciaries and service provider requirements, breach of its provisions carries all the usual exposures of a fiduciary breach.

Bonding exposures can arise in audit or as part of a broader fiduciary investigation.The likelihood of discovery in an audit or investigation by the Labor Department in the course of an audit is high, as review of bonding is a standard part of audits and investigations. The Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) Enforcement Manual specifies in connection with the conduct of a fiduciary investigation or audit:

… the Investigator/Auditor will ordinarily determine whether a plan is in compliance with the bonding, reporting, and disclosure provisions of ERISA by completing an ERISA Bonding Checklist … These checklists will be filled out in fiduciary cases and retained in the RO workpaper case file unless violations are uncovered, developed, and reported in the ROI.

In the best case scenario, where the bonding noncompliance comes to light in the course of an EBSA audit where no plan loss resulted, the responsible fiduciary generally runs at least a risk that EBSA will assess the 20 percent fiduciary penalty under ERISA Section 502(l). If the bonding lapse comes to light in connection with a fiduciary breach that resulted in damages to the plan by a fiduciary or other party, the bonding insufficiency may be itself a breach of fiduciary duty resulting in injury to the plan and where this breach left the plan unprotected against an act of dishonesty or fiduciary breach by an individual who should have been bonded, may spread liability for the wrongful acts of the wrongdoer to a plan sponsor, member of management or other party serving in a fiduciary role who otherwise would not be liable but for definiciences in the bonding or other credentialing responsibilities.

Under ERISA Section 409, a fiduciary generally is personally liable for injuries to the plan arising from his own breach (such as failure to properly bond) or resulting from breaches of another co-fiduciary who he knew or should have known through prudent exercise of his responsibilities.

Of course, in the most serious cases, such as embezzlement or other criminal acts by a fiduciary of ERISA, the consequences can be quite dire. Knowing or intentional violation of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibilities exposes the guilty fiduciary to fines of up to $10,000, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Even where the violation is not knowing or willful, however, allowing disqualified persons to serve in fiduciary roles can have serious consequences such as exposure to Department of Labor penalties and personal liability for breach of fiduciary duty for damages resulting to the plan if it is established that the retention of services was an imprudent engagement of such an individual that caused the loss. When conducting such a background check, care should be taken to comply with the applicable notice and consent requirements for conducting third party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law. As such background investigations generally would be conducted in such a manner as to qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, conducting background checks in a manner that violates the FCRA credit check requirements itself can be a source of significant liability.

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Updates Guidance On Fee Disclosure Requirements For 401(k) Plan Brokerage Window Arrangements

August 6, 2012

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

New Q-39 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R addresses when a plan offers an investment platform that includes a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement but the fiduciary did not designate any of the funds on the platform or available through the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement as “designated investment alternatives” under the plan, if the brokerage account platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement is a designated investment alternative for purposes of the regulation. According to Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R, it is not. According to the Field Assistance Bulletin, the regulation does not require that a plan have a particular number of “designated investment alternative” (DIA), and the Bulletin does not prohibit the use of a platform or a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement in an individual account plan. Rather, whether an investment alternative is a DIA for purposes of the regulation depends on whether it is specifically identified as available under the plan.

However Question 39 also cautions plan administrators and fiduciaries about the need to ensure other applicable ERISA obligations are fulfilled. Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02R notes it does not change the 404(c) regulation or the requirements for relief from fiduciary liability under section 404(c) of ERISA or address the application of ERISA’s general fiduciary requirements to SEPs or SIMPLE IRA plans. Also, fiduciaries of such plans with platforms or brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, or similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan are still bound by ERISA section 404(a)’s statutory duties of prudence and loyalty to participants and beneficiaries who use the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement, including taking into account the nature and quality of services provided in connection with the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement. It also notes that that a 401(k) or other individual account plan fiduciary’s failure to designate investment alternatives to avoid investment disclosures under the regulation, raises questions under ERISA section 404(a)’s general statutory fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.

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.

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 Update and 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 from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

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

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

Federal Mandate That Employer Health Plans Must Cover 100% Of Contraceptive, Other Women’s Health Services With No Cost Sharing Now Effective

August 6, 2012

August 1 Effective Date Of Obama Administration Addition of Contraception & Other Women’s Health Services To Already Lengthy List of Prevention Services Plans Must Cover

Effective August 1, 2012, federal regulators expanded the list of prevention-related services that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) requires that non-grandfathered group health plans cover in-network at no cost to covered persons to include eight more prevention-related health services for women including coverage for the mandate to cover certain contraceptive services that has engendered much debate and opposition from various religious organizations and others.

Employers and other sponsors and insurers of group health plans should review and update their health plan documents, contracts, communications and administration practices to ensure that their health plans and policies appropriately cover these and other prevention-related services that current federal regulations mandate that group health plans (other than grandfathered plans) must cover to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Non-Grandfathered Health Plans Must Cover Expansive List of Prevention Services

As part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act, Congress has mandated that except for certain plans that qualify as “grandfathered,” group health plans and insurers generally must pay for 100% of the cost to cover hundreds of prevention-related health care services for individuals covered under their health plans without any co-payments or other cost-sharing.identified in the services without cost sharing.

Federal regulations have mandated since 2010 that group health plans and insurers provide in-network coverage in accordance with federal regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s prevention-related health services mandates for more than 800 prevention-related services listed in regulations originally published in 2009. See Agencies Release Regulations Implementing Affordable Care Act Preventive Care Mandates. The Affordable Care Act gives federal authorities the power to expand or modify this list. Following publication of the original list, the Obama Administration engaged in lengthy discussion considerations about the scope of contraceptive and other women’s health services that would qualify as prevention related services including lengthy discussions and negotiations about mandates to provide contraceptive services viewed as highly controversial by many religious organizations and several other employers. See Affordable Care Act To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures.

Obama Administration Adds Contraceptive & Other Women’s Health Services To Required List Effective 8/1/2012

The Obama Administration moved forward on its promise to add contraceptive services and a broad list of other women’s health services to the list of prevention-related health services that employer-sponsored health plans must cover without cost to employees despite objections from religious organizations and others that the contraception mandate violates the Constitution’s freedom of religion protections.

The Obama Administration’s announcement earlier this year that it intended to move forward with plans to mandate that group health plans – including those of certain employers affiliated with religious organizations to cover contraceptive counseling and other services as prevention-related services has prompted outcry and legal challenges from a broad range of religious organizations and others. See e.g., University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius; Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius. On July 27, 2012, a Colorado District Court granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate against a small, Catholic family-owned business challenging the mandate as a violation of the Constitutional religious freedoms of its owners. See Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Sebelius.

While these and other litigants continue to challenge the contraceptive mandates, Obama Administration officials continue to voice their commitment to standby and enforce the contraceptive and other prevention-related services mandates as implemented by current regulation. Employer and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries that do not wish to risk exposure for violating these mandates should review and update their health plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, and administrative and other procedures as necessary to comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations.

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.

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 leading health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

Other Resources

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

1 Comment | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Mandated Benefits, Plan Sponosr, preventive care, Risk Managment, Women's Health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities

August 1, 2012

August 1 marked the effective date of yet another Affordable Care Act mandate: the controversial contraceptive coverage and other women’s health preventive coverage benefits mandates. Although many mandates have taken effect over the past two years, few employer plans are adequately updated. Here’s some suggestions about what employers and fiduciaries responsible for group health plan sponsorship or administration and their vendors should do now to manage exposures arising from current Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Following the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling, most employers and insurers of employment based group health plans now are bracing to cope with radical changes in their health plan related responsibilities scheduled to take effect in 2014.

While anticipating and preparing to cope with these future changes health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors need to manage the substantial and growing health plan related costs and liabilities that the sponsorship or administration of an employee health plan between now and 2014 is likely to create for their company and its management. Consequently, while planning for 2014, employers sponsoring health plans and their management, insurers, administrators and vendors must act now to update and administer their group health plans timely to comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and other federal rules that have, or in coming months will, take effect pending the law’s full rollout in 2014.

For most health plans, these steps should include the following:

Know The Cast Of Characters & What Hat(s) (Including You) They Wear & Prudently Select, Contract With & Monitor Them To Manage Risks

Employers and their management rely upon many vendors and advisors and assumptions when making plan design and risk management decisions. Many times, employer and members of their management unknowingly assume significant risk because of misperceptions about these allocations of duties and operational and legal accountability. An correct understanding of these roles and responsibilities is the foundation for knowing where the risks come from, who and to what extent a business or its management can rely upon a vendor or advisor to properly design and administer a health plan or carry out related obligations, what risks cannot be delegated, and how to manage these risks.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), party or parties that exercise discretion or control over health plan administration, funds or certain other matters are generally called “fiduciaries.” Fiduciaries generally are personally liable for prudently and appropriately administering their health plan related responsibilities prudently in accordance with ERISA and other applicable laws and the plan terms. Knowing who is acting as a fiduciary and understanding those duties and liabilities and how to manage these risks significantly affects the exposure that an employer or member of its management risks as a result of an employer’s sponsorship in a group health plan or other employee benefit program. Also, knowing what duties come first and how to prove that the fiduciary did the right thing is critical to managing risks when an individual who has fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA also has other responsibilities in the management of the sponsoring employer, a vendor or elsewhere that carries duties or interests that conflict with his health plan related fiduciary duties.

The plan sponsor or members of its leadership, a service provider or members of their staff generally may be a fiduciary for purposes of ERISA if it either is named as the fiduciary, it functionally exercises the discretion to be considered a fiduciary, or it otherwise has discretionary power over plan administration or other fiduciary matters. Many plan sponsors and their management unwittingly take on liability that they assume rests with an insurer or service provider because the company or members of its management are named as the plan administrator or named fiduciary with regard to duties that the company has hired an insurer or service provider to provide or allowed that service provider to disclaim fiduciary or discretionary status with regard to those responsibilities. Also, by not knowing who the fiduciaries are, plans and their fiduciaries often fail to confirm the eligibility of all parties serving as fiduciaries, to arrange for bonding of service providers or fiduciaries as required to comply with Title I of ERISA. Failing to properly understand when the plan sponsor, member of its management or another party is or could be a fiduciary can create unnecessary and unexpected risks and lead to reliance upon vendors who provide advice but leave the employer holding the bag for resulting liability.

In addition to fiduciary status, employer and other plan sponsors also need to understand the additional responsibilities and exposures that the employer bears as a plan sponsor. Beyond contractual and fiduciary liabilities, federal law increasingly imposes excise tax or other liability for failing to maintain legally compliant plans, file required reports, provide required notifications or fulfill other requirements. The Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, the Privacy, Security, and Administrative Simplification For instance, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and various other federal laws also impose certain health plan related obligations and liabilities on employer or other health plan sponsors and other parties. The Internal Revenue Service interprets Internal Revenue Code § 6039D as obligating employers sponsoring health plans that violate these and certain other federal health plan rules to self-identify, self-report, and self-assess and pay excise and other taxes due under the Internal Revenue Code as a result of this non-compliance. Knowing what everyone’s roles and responsibilities are is a critical first step to properly understanding and managing health plan responsibilities and related risks.

An accurate understanding of the risks and who bears them is critical to understand the risks, opportunities to mitigate risk through effective contracting or other outsourcing, when outsourcing does not effectively transfer risks, where to invest resources for contract, plan or process review and changes or other risk management, and where to expect costs and risks and implement processes and procedures to deal with risks that cannot be outsourced or managed.

Know What Rules Apply To Your Plan, The Sponsoring Employer, The Plan Its Fiduciaries & Plan Related Vendors & How This Impacts You & Your Group Health Plan

The requirements and rules impacting health plans and their liabilities have undergone continuous changes. Amid these changing requirements, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, and service providers often may not have kept their knowledge, much less their plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications, administrative forms and procedures and other materials and practices up to date. These requirements and their compliance and risk management significance may vary depending upon whether the reviewing or regulated party is the plan, its sponsor, fiduciary, insurer or services in some other rules; how the plans are arranged and documented, the risk and indemnification allocations negotiated among the parties, the risk tolerance of the party, and other factors. Proper understanding of these rules and their implications is critical to understand and manage the applicable risks and exposures.

Review & Update Health Plan Documents, SPDs & Other Communications, Administrative Forms & Procedures, Contracts & Processes To Meet Requirements & Manage Exposures

Timely updating written plan documents, communications and administration forms, administrative practices, contracts and other health plan related materials processes and procedures has never been more critical.

Federal law generally requires that health plan be established, maintained and administered in accordance with legally complaint, written plan documents and impose a growing list of standards and requirements governing the design and administration of these programs. In addition, ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, federal eligibility and coverage continuation mandates of laws like the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, the Family & Medical Leave Act, Michelle’s Law and others require that health plan administrators or sponsors communicate plan terms and other relevant information to participants and beneficiaries.

Failing to update documents, communications, administrative forms and processes and other materials and practices can unleash a host of exposures. Among other things, noncompliant plans, communications and practices can trigger unanticipated costs and liabilities by undermining the ability to administer plan terms and conditions. They also may expose the plan, plan fiduciaries and others to lawsuits, administrative enforcement and sanctions and other enforcement liabilities.

Beyond these exposures, employers who sponsor group health plans that violate certain federal group health plan mandates have a duty to self-report certain regulatory plan failures and pay excise taxes where such failures are not corrected in a timely fashion once discovered, or are due to willful neglect. Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D imposes excise taxes for failure to comply with health care continuation (COBRA) , health plan portability (HIPAA), genetic nondiscrimination (GINA), mental health parity (MHPAEA) , minimum hospital stays for newborns and mothers (Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act), coverage of dependent students on medically necessary leaves of absence (Michelle’s Law), health savings account (HSA) and Archer medical savings account (Archer MSA) contribution comparability and various other federal requirements incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code. Since 2010, Internal Revenue Service regulations have required employers sponsoring group health plans not complying with mandates covered by Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-report violations and pay related excise taxes. Under these regulations, the sponsoring employer (or in some cases, the insurer, HMO or third-party administrator) must report health plan compliance failures annually on IRS Form 8928 (“Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code”) and self-assess and pay resulting excise taxes. The potential excise tax liability that can result under these provisions can be significant. For example, COBRA, HIPAA, and GINA violations typically carry excise tax liability of $100 per day per individual affected. Compliance with applicable federal group health plan mandates is critical to avoid these excise taxes as well as other federal group health plan liabilities.

For this purpose of deciding what and how much to do, it is critical to keep in mind the devil is in the details. Not only must the documentation meet all technical mandates, the language, its clarity and specificity, and getting the plan document to match the actual processes that will be used to administer the plan and ensuring that the plan documents and processes match the summary plan description, summary of benefits and coverage, administrative forms and documentation and other plan communications and documentation in a legally compliant way significantly impacts the defensibility of the plan terms and the cost that the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries can expect to incur to defend it.

Update & Tighten Claims and Appeals Plan & SPD Language, EOBs & Other Notifications, Processes, Contracts & Other Practices For Changing Compliance Requirements & Enhanced Defensibility

Proper health plan claims and appeals plan and summary plan description language, procedures, processing, notification and documentation is critical to maintain defensible claims and appeals decisions required to enforce plan terms and manage claims denial related liabilities and defense costs. Noncompliance with these requirements may prevent health plans from defending their claims or appeals denials, expose the plan administrator and plan fiduciaries involved or responsible for these activities to penalties, prompt unnecessary lawsuits, Labor Department enforcement or both; and drive up plan administration costs.

Unfortunately, most group health plans, their insurers and administrators need to substantially strengthen their plan documentation; handling; timeliness; notifications and other claims denials; and other claims and other appeals processes and documentation to meet existing regulations and otherwise strengthen their defensibility. Among other things, existing court decisions document that many plans existing plan documents, summary plan descriptions and explanations of benefits, claims and appeals investigations and documentation and notifications often need improvement to meet the basic plan document, summary plan description and reasonable claims rules of the plan document, summary plan description, fiduciary responsibility, reasonable claims and appeals procedures of ERISA and its implementing regulations. Court precedent shows that inadequate drafting of these provisions, as well as specific provisions coverage and benefit provisions frequently undermines the defensibility of claims and appeals determinations. In addition to requiring that claims be processed and paid prudently in accordance with the terms of written plan documents, ERISA also requirements that plan fiduciaries decide and administer claims and appeals in accordance with reasonable claims procedures. Although the Labor Department updated its regulations implementing this reasonable claims and appeals procedure requirement more than 10 years ago, the Department of Labor updated its ERISA claims and appeals regulations to include detailed health plan claims and appeals requirements, many group health plans, their administrators and insurers still have not updated their health plans, summary plan descriptions, claims and appeals notification, and claims and appeals procedures to comply with these requirements. The external review and other detailed additional requirements that the Affordable Care Act dictates that group health plans not grandfathered from its provisions and its provisions holding these non-grandfathered plans strictly liable for deficiencies in their claims and appeals procedures makes the need to address inadequacies even more imperative for those non-grandfathered group health plans. Inadequate attention to these concerns can force a plan to pay benefits for claims otherwise not covered as well as other defense costs and penalties.

Consistency Matters: Build Good Plan Design, Documentation & Processes, Then Follow Them.

Defensible health plan administration starts with the building and adopting strong, legally compliant plan terms and processes that are carefully documented and communicated in a prudent, legally compliant way. The next key is to actually use this investment by conducting plan administration and related operations consistent with the terms and allocated responsibilities to administer the plan in a documented, legally compliant and prudent manner. Good documentation and design on the front end should minimize ambiguities in the meaning of the plan and who is responsible for doing what when. With these tools in place, delays and other hiccups that result from confusion about plan terms, how they apply to a particular circumstance or who is responsible for doing what, when should be minimized and much more easily resolved by timely, appropriate action by the proper responsible party. This facilitation of administration and its consistency can do much to enhance the defensibility of the plan and minimize other plan related risks and costs.

Ensure Correct Party Carefully Communicates About Coverage and Claims in Compliant, Timely, Prudent, Provable Manner

Having the proper party respond to claims and inquiries in a compliant, timely, prudent manner is another key element to managing health plan risk and promoting enforceability. Ideally, the party appointed to act as the named fiduciary for purposes of carrying out a particular function also should conduct all plan communications regarding that function in terms that makes clear its role and negates responsibility or authority of others. When an employer or other plan sponsor goes to the trouble to appoint a committee, service provider or other party to serve as the named fiduciary then chooses to communicate about the plan anyway, the Supreme Court in FMC v. Halliday made clear it runs the risk that the plan related communications may be considered discretionary fiduciary conduct for which it may be liable as a functional fiduciary. Meanwhile, these communications by non-fiduciaries also may create binding obligations upon the plan and its named fiduciaries to the extent made by a plan sponsor or conducted by a staff member or service provider performing responsibilities delegated by the plan fiduciary. Beyond expanding the scope of potential fiduciaries, communications conducted by nonfiduciaries also tend to create defensibility for many other reasons. For instance, allowing unauthorized parties to perform plan functions may not comport with the plan terms, and are less likely to create and preserve required documentation and follow procedures necessary to promote enforceability. Also, the communications, decisions and other actions by these non-fiduciary actors also are unlikely to qualify for discretionary review by the courts because grants of discretionary authority, if any in the written plan document to qualify the decisions of the named fiduciary for deferential review by courts typically will not extend to actions by these non-fiduciary parties. Furthermore, the likelihood that the communication or other activity conducted will not comply with the fiduciary responsibility or other requirements governing the performance of the plan related functions is significantly increased when a plan sponsor, service provider, member of management, or other party not who has not been appointed or accepted the appointment act as a named fiduciary undertakes to speak or act because that party very likely does not accept or fully appreciate the potential nature of its actions, the fiduciary and other legal rules applicable to the conduct, and the potential implications for the non-fiduciary actor, the plan and its fiduciaries.

Design and Implement Updated, Properly Secured Payroll, Enrollment, Eligibility and Other Data Collection Features To Meet New Requirements and Prepare For Added Affordable Care Act Data Gathering and Reporting Requirements.

Existing and impending Affordable Care Act mandates require that group health plans, their sponsors collect, maintain and administer is exploding. Existing eligibility mandates, for example, already require that plans have access to a broad range of personal indentifying, personal health and a broad range of other sensitive information about employees and dependents who are or may be eligible for coverage under the plan. While employers and their health plans historically have collected and retained the names, place of residence, family relationships, social security number, and other similar information about employees and their dependents, these data collection, retention and reporting requirements have and will continued to expand dramatically in response to evolving legal requirements. Already, health plans also from time to time need employee earnings, company ownership, employment status, family income, family, medical, military, and school leave information, divorce and child custody, enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid and other coverage and a broad range of other additional information. Under the Affordable Care Act, these data needs will explode to include a whole new range of information about total family income, availability and enrollment in other coverage, cultural and language affiliations, and many other items. Collecting, retaining and deploying this information will be critical to meeting existing and new plan administration and reporting requirements. How this data collection is conducted, shared, safeguarded against misuse or other legally sensitive contact by the employer, service providers, the plan and others will be essential to mitigate exposures to federal employment and other nondiscrimination, HIPAA and other privacy, fiduciary responsibility and other legal risks and obligations. To the extent that payroll providers, third party administrators or other outside service providers will participate in the collection, retention, or use of this data, time also should be set aside both to conduct due diligence about their suitability, as well as to negotiate the necessary contractual arrangements and safeguards to make their involvement appropriate. Finally, given the highly sensitive nature of this data, employers, health plans and others that will collect and use this data will need to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent and monitor for improper use, access or disclosure and to conduct the necessary training to suitably protect this data.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandates, many opportunities to impact its mandates remain. Beyond the highly visible, continuing and often heated debates ranging in Congress and the court of public opinion concerning whether Congress should modify or repeal its provisions, a plethora of regulatory interpretations issued or impending release by the implementing agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Labor and state insurance regulators will significantly impact what requirements and costs employers, insurers, individuals and governments will bear when the law takes effect. Businesses sponsoring health plans should carefully scrutinize this regulatory guidance and provide meaningful, timely input to Congress, the regulators or both as appropriate to help influence the direction of regulatory or Congressional actions that would materially impact these burdens.

Help Employees & Their Families Build Their Health Care Coping Skills With Training & Supportive Tools

Whether or not your company plans to continue to sponsor employee health coverage after 2014, providing training and tools to help employees and their families strengthen their ability to understand and manage their health, health care needs and benefits can pay big dividends. Beyond the financial costs to employees and employers of paying to care for a serious illness or injury, productivity also suffers while employees dealing with their own or a family member’s chronic or serious health care condition. Wellness programs that encourage and support the efforts of employees and their families to stay healthy may be one valuable part of these efforts. Beyond trying to prevent the need to cope with illness behind wellness programs, however, opportunities to realize big financial, productivity and benefit value recognition rewards also exist in the too often overlooked opportunity to provide training, education and tools that employees and their families need to better understand and self-manage care, benefits, finances and life challenges that commonly arise when dealing with their own or a family member’s illness. Providing education, tools and other resources that can help employees access, organize and effectively use health care and benefit information to manage care and the consequences of illness, their benefits and how to use them, to take part more effectively in care and care decisions, to recognize and self-manage financial, lost-time and other challenges associated with the illness not addressable or covered by health benefit programs, and other practical skills can help reduce lost time and other productivity impacts while helping employees and their families get the most out of the health care dollars spent.

Pack Your Parachute & Locate The Nearest Exit Doors

With the parade of expenses and liabilities associated with health plans, businesses sponsoring health plans and the management, service providers and others involved in their establishment, continuation, maintenance or administration are well advised to pack their survival kit and develop their exit strategies to position to soften the landing in case their health plan experiences a legal or operational disaster.

Employers and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries typically hire and rely upon a host of vendors and advisors to design and administer their health plans. When selecting and hiring these service providers, health plan sponsors and fiduciaries are well-advised to investigate carefully their credentials as well as require the vendors to provide written commitments to stand behind their advice and services. Too often, while these service providers and advisors encourage plan sponsors and fiduciaries to allow the vendor to lead them or even handle on an ongoing basis plan administration services by touting their services, experience, expert systems and process and commitment to stand behind the customer when making the sale or encouraging reliance upon their advice when tough decisions are made, they rush to stand behind exculpatory and on-sided indemnification provisions in their service contracts to limit or avoid liability, demand indemnification from their customer or both when things go wrong. While ERISA may offer some relief from certain of these exculpatory provisions under some circumstances, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should work to credential service providers and require service providers to commit to being accountable for their services by requiring contracts acknowledge all promised services and standards of quality, require vendors to commit to provide legally compliant and prudently designed and administered services that meet or exceed applicable legal requirements, to provide liability-backed indemnification or other protection for damages and costs resulting from vendor imprudence or malfeasance, to allow for contract termination if the vendor becomes unsuitable for continued use due to changing law or other circumstances and requiring the vendor to return data and other documentation critical to defend past decisions and provide for ongoing administration. Keep documentation about advice, assurances and other relevant evidence received from vendors which could be useful in showing your company’s or plan’s efforts to make prudent efforts to provide for the proper administration of the plan. When concerns arise, use care to investigate and redress concerns in a timely, measured fashion which both shows the prudent response to the concern and reflects sensitivity to the fiduciary and other roles and responsibilities of the employer sponsor and other parties involved.

Get Moving Now On Your Compliance & Risk Management Issues.

Since many compliance deadlines already have past and the impending deadlines allow plan sponsors and fiduciaries limited time to finish arrangements, businesses, fiduciaries and their service providers need to get moving immediately to update their health plans to meet existing and impending compliance and risk management risks under the Affordable Care Act and other federal laws, decisions and regulations.

Monitor, Assess Implications & Provide Relevant Input to Regulators About Emerging Requirements & Interpretive Guidance Implementing 2014 Affordable Care Act & Other Mandates.

While the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, employer and other health plan sponsors, Congress continues to debate changes to the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan rules. Meanwhile, significant opportunity still exists to provide input to federal and state regulators on many key aspects of the Affordable Care Act and its relationship to other applicable laws even as court challenges to contraceptive coverage and other specific requirements are emerging. Businesses and other health plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators, and other vendors must stay involved and alert. Zealously monitor new developments and share timely input with Congress and regulators about existing and emerging rules that present concerns and other opportunities for improvement even as you position to respond to these rules before they become fully implemented.

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.

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 Update and 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 from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

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

Comments Off on 12 Steps Every Employer With A Health Plan Should Do Now To Manage 2012-14 Health Plan Risks & Liabilities | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Privacy, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Finance, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reform. Employer, Health Plans, Management, Plan Sponosr, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Essential Health Benefit Definition Built On Expensive Mandated Benefit Plan Likely To Be Expensive For Employers, States & Individuals

July 20, 2012

Learn More & Get A 2012 Health Plan Compliance Checkup at 7/24 Health Plan Update WebEx Workshop!

Concerned about how the mandates and costs of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act will impact your corporate and family finances following the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA)? Businesses, individuals, states and federal and state Congressional and regulatory leaders others looking for opportunities to manage these costs should carefully scrutinize how the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) plans to define “essential health benefits” (EHBs).

Essential Health Benefit Determinations Impact Program Designs and Costs

The definition of EHBs is pivotal to determining the benefits required to be offered by payers and purchased by individuals under the Affordable Care Act now as well as when full Affordable Care Act implementation happens in 2014. Of course, the already effective Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on lifetime and annual dollar limitations on EHBs provided under covered health plans and insurance policies already have impacted the plan designs and costs of existing coverages.

Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will require that all non-grandfathered health plans in the insured individual and small group market and certain covered state and federal programs will cover at least the EHB as defined by HHS. Although the Affordable Care Act does not directly obligate self-insured group health plans, large group market health plans, and grandfathered health plans to design their plan to provide the coverage included in the required EHB package after 3014, the EHB package design also will affect the costs of these plans by prohibiting these plans from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on EHBs even though the final process for determining what is an EHB for these employer-sponsored health plan purposes has yet to be finalized.

Furthermore, since the Affordable Care Act currently restricts both insured and self-insured health plans of all sizes from imposing lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits and services listed in the Affordable Care Act as required EHBs, the statutory list of EHBs already is having significant cost implications for employers and health plans and their health plan designs. These implications will only grow as full implementation of the Affordable Care Act reform occurs in 2014. Thus, the definition of EHB and how it is a key determinant of the ultimate cost of the Affordable Care Act mandates for individuals, employers, insurers, states, the federal government and ultimately taxpayers.

HHS Guidance Promotes Benefit-Rich EHB Program Mandate For States & Individual & Small Group Insured Programs & Policies

The current approach of the HHS to determining the services and benefits for non-grandfathered individual and small group market insured plans and covered state and federal benefit programs will be skewed toward the benefit rich plan design of federal and state employee health plans and benefit mandate-laden small group insurance plans even though the majority of employer sponsored health plans are self-insured plans that contain more limited benefit packages.

The Affordable Care Act directs that the EHB reflect the scope of benefits covered by a “typical employer plan” and cover at least the following general categories of items and services: categories of items and services: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care (Listed EHB).

An overly-rich EHBs definition will require that individual and insured small group employer health plans, insurers, state Medicaid and Exchanges and the federal exchanges provide, and individuals in these programs purchase, a much richer set of benefits than is currently provided to the majority of employees under the self-insured, employer-sponsored health plans under which they are covered when most are struggling to deal with already over-extended budgets.

Although 60% or more of all employer-sponsored health plans nationwide and 82% of plans sponsored by companies employing more than 200 workers are “self-insured” health plans exempt from the obligation to provide the state mandated benefits that apply to insured plans under state insurance regulations, HHS is largely ignoring the practices of these self-insured health plans for purposes of defining the EHBs package that plans and other payers must offer as EHBs.

Unlike insured health plans, self-insured health plans generally are exempted from the obligation to comply with mandated benefits requirements of state insurance laws pursuant to the preemption provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Avoidance of the cost of providing state mandated benefits typically is one of the primary reasons that an employer chooses to offer health plan coverage on a self-insured rather than insured basis. Consequently, the care and services covered by self-insured health plans typically are less generous in many respects than those provided by state and federal employee health plans or individual or group health insurance policies regulated by state insurance law.

Even knowing that the majority of employer-sponsored coverage is provided on a self-insured basis and that federal, state, employer and individual budgets are already strained, HHS nevertheless set up the process so that practices of the government employee health programs and state-regulated insurance policies subject to a wide range of state benefit mandates will determine the EHBs package.

Both state-regulated insured health plans and federal and state employee plans generally are loaded with a long list of mandated benefits that self-insured health plans don’t provide or provide only on a more limited basis. Because self-insured plans are exempt from the duty to comply with state insurance mandated benefit regulations, the benefit package provided under a self-insured plan typically is not as extravagant as the benefit package offered by insurance plans required to comply with state benefit mandates or by the federal or state employee health insurance programs paid for with taxpayer dollars, the process ensures a richer EHB package.

More required benefits means more required costs and the required EHB package determines the benefits required. Thus, HHS’s decision to model the Affordable Care Act’s definition of EHBs upon federal and state employee health plans and insured state policies when the sponsors of those programs already are struggling to pay for the costs of the plush benefit packages dictated by law merely promises to overburden the fiscal resources of these sponsors and the individuals required to participate and contribute to these programs.

Nevertheless, driven by an administration firmly entrenched in the utopian delusions that money is no object when it comes to promising health care benefits, HHS is diligently proceeding on a path to ensure that the benefit-rich, more expensive government employee health plan/state regulated insured plan model determines the required EHBs.

Under the intended process announced by HHS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) on December 16, 2011, HHS announced that it would allow each state to decide the EHBs package on a state-by-state by choosing a “benchmark health plan” that meets HHS standards. While HHS touted the decision as allowing states significant choice, as outlined in more detail in the paragraphs that follow, in reality the parameters within which HHS will require states to exercise this choice provides little flexibility for states to control costs by adopting a limited EHB package. Furthermore, final regulations published in the July 20, 2012 Federal Register that define the data that HHS will rely upon to define and update the EHB definition going forward also layout a process that will almost certainly result in a much richer package of EHBs than what most employees covered by self-insured employer or union-sponsored health plans enjoy today.

In December 2011, HHS announced its intention to allowing states the “flexibility” to define EHB on a state by state basis provided that the state’s EHB definition meets minimum standards required by HHS. Under this approach, the benefits and services included in the benchmark health insurance plan selected by the state would be the EHBs package. States in deciding the required EHB package could modify coverage within a benefit category so long as they do not reduce the value of coverage.

To set the EHBs package for its state, HHS intend that a state will decide the benefits and services required in the EHBs package by choosing one of the following programs, (supplemented as necessary to ensure that the benchmark health plan covers each of the 10 categories of benefits listed in the Affordable Care Act) as the benchmark health insurance plan for that state:

One of the three largest small group plans in the state by enrollment;
One of the three largest state employee health plans by enrollment;
One of the three largest federal employee health plan options by enrollment; or
The largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market by enrollment.

None of these options would allow for a state to elect for the EHBs package that more closely tailors the more cost-effective, less mandated benefit heavy designs more typically used in the self-insured employer-sponsored programs sponsored by more than 60% of U.S. employers offering employee health insurance coverage. Therefore, individuals covered by individual health insurance and small employers providing coverage through small group market insurance policies can expect to be required to offer a rich benefit package regardless of the state in which they are based.

Concerning which EHB package will apply when a small employer has employees or operates in multiple states, existing guidance specifies that the EHB benchmark for the State in which the insurance policy is issued would determine the EHB for all participants, regardless of the employee’s State of residence.

Individual and small group insurance plans and policies and government benefit programs required to provide essential benefits also should not anticipate that required scope of the required EHB package will narrow over time if HHS proceeds as planned.

The final rule on “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Data Collection To Support Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits; Recognition of Entities for the Accreditation of Qualified Health Plans” (EHB Data Rule) published on July 24, 2012 also does not take into account the practices of self-insured health plans for purposes of defining and updating EHB package.

The EHB Data Rule outlines the data that health insurers offering coverage under qualified health plans pursuant to Health Care Exchanges will be required to collect and report to HHS for HHS to use to determine the definition and update the EHBs package. This final rule also establishes a process for the recognition of accrediting entities for purposes of certification of qualified health plans.

The EHB Data Rule ignores and excludes reference to any data based on self-insured health plan coverage. Instead, in its current form the EHB Data Rule relies only collects data reported by insured plans. Reliance only upon data collected under the EHB Data Rule will further skew the plan design for all plans – insured or self-insured – to be designed in accordance with the more benefit rich mandates of governmental employee plans funded by taxpayer dollars and fully-insured group health plans forced to include a broad range of state benefit mandates in their programs. Consequently, it appears that HHS intends that self-insured employee health plans will be required to provide the same extremely benefit rich EHBs package as required in a fully-insured health plan even though ERISA section 514 bars the states from enforcing state mandates against self-insured plans.

By disregarding the practices of self-insured plans in the current process of setting expectations for the EHB package the planned HHS process for determining the EHB package provides for a much richer and more expensive benefit package than what is provided in the typical self-insured health plan offered by 60% of U.S. employers nationwide.

Implications & Action Items For Employer Plan Sponsors, Insurers, Employers, Individuals & States Concerned About Costs

Because the determination of the EHB package plays such a significant role in determining the premiums and other amounts that employers, individuals, states and taxpayers will have to expend to fund promised benefits, all parties concerned with the need to appropriately manage these and other related costs should push for HHS and the other Departments, as well as members of Congress to insist that the benefits and services treated as EHBs be carefully tailored.

As the history of state mandated benefits already demonstrates, the cost of funding the benefits promised in the program for all parties will increase the more services included in the definition of EHB. With state, employer, individual and the federal government budgets already strained in a tight economy, a utopian definition of EHBs that results in overburdening costs is a luxury that no one can avoid.

Taken together, the final regulations and HHS’s intended approach to allowing states to define essential health benefits on a state-by-state basis promises under the process established by HHS will result in the imposition of a much richer and more expensive required EHB package on individuals that is richer and more expensive than would result if the self-insured group health plan practices and data were included. As a result, states, small group market insurers and their employer customers and the individuals participating in these plans can expect to be required to pay for a more costly package of benefits than might apply if HHS had elected to use a more holistic approach to defining the EHB package that took into account the practices of self-insured employer and union-sponsored health plans.

This outcome certainly is not dictated by the language of the statute. A more balanced definition of EHBs tailored to meet the economic and budget realities of the times certainly is attainable within the current statutory framework without the need for legislative action. Indeed, given that the majority of group health plans are self-insured, many question the appropriateness of HHS’s reliance upon the practices and data of state regulated, mandated benefit laden insured health plans to define the EHB of a “typical employer plan.” Concerned employers, insurers, and individuals should urge HHS to reconsider its approach and adopt an alternative definition of EHB focused on defining essential in light of the cash-strained times.

To the extent that the existing regulators are unwilling to temper the zealousness of idealism to meet today’s budget and economic realities, employers, insurers and the individuals who will be required to bear the burden of the resulting costs should pressure Congress to act to clarify the EHB definition so as not to overburden the system.

Self-insured group health plans, large group market health plans, and grandfathered health plans also need to recognize the need to participate in the dialogue. These programs and their employer and union sponsors are still in limbo, awaiting guidance from HHS about what standards HHS will impose for purposes of determining what constitutes an EHB and how this decision will impact their costs and plan design and other implications even as the Affordable Care Act requires them to decide without guidance what EHBs are for purposes of complying with its lifetime and annual dollar limit prohibitions.

According to a “Frequently Asked Questions on Essential Health Benefits Bulletin” published by HHS earlier this year, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and HHS still are deciding how they will determine if a self-insured group health plan, a large group market health plan, or a grandfathered group health plan used a permissible definition of EHB for purposes of meeting their responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act. HHS as indicated they are considering deeming the plan’s definition of EHB appropriate if the plan uses “a definition authorized by the Secretary of HHS (including any available benchmark option, supplemented as needed to ensure coverage of all ten statutory categories).

Regardless, until that additional guidance is forthcoming, the need to administer their group health plans in accordance with the already-effective Affordable Care Act restrictions on lifetime and annual dollar limits on EHBs means all affected group health plans that contain any annual limits on benefits, their sponsors and fiduciaries should take steps to ensure that these provisions are supported and administered using an appropriate definition of EHB supported by the necessary analysis and documentation to position the health plan to demonstrate this effort at good faith compliance until HHS issues further clarifying guidance.

Get Health Plan Compliance Check up at 7/24 Health Plan Update

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

The Workshop offers the opportunity for employer and union health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and service providers to catch up on the latest requirements and guidelines impacting employer and union sponsored group health plans under ACA and other federal health plan regulations.

The 2012 Health Plan Update Workshop is scheduled for July 24, 2012 from 12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern, 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central, 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain and 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific Time.

Participants may choose to attend the live briefing in Addison, Texas or take part via WebEx for a registration fee of $125.00. Texas Department of Insurance Continuing Education Credit and other professional certification credit may be requested by qualifying participant for an added charge.

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

ACA Summary of Benefits And Communications Mandates & Their Implications On Plan Documents, SPDs & Administration
ACA Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Mandates
ACA External & Internal Review, ERISA Claims & Appeals, & Other Federal Claim Handling Requirements: What rules apply to which plans? What to do to minimize the impact of changing requirements?
ACA “Essential Health Benefit” Rules & Their Implications For Health Plans & Their Sponsors Now & After 2014
ACA, ADA & Other Federal Health Plan Nondiscrimination Rules
ACA W-2 & Other Federal Reporting, Notice & Disclosure Requirements
ACA grandfathered plan status: Do you have it? How do you lose it? What it does for your program?
ACA, COBRA, HIPAA, GINA, FMLA, Military Leave, Michelle’s Law & Other Federal Eligibility Mandates
Preventive care coverage & wellness program rules under Affordable Care Act, GINA, ADA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under ACA, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Federal Health Plan Notice & Communication Rules
ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility, Reporting & Disclosure & Other Rules
New HIPAA Privacy Rules & Audits & How Plans & Plan Sponsors Should Respond
Consumer Driven Health Plan Communication Strategies
Tips To Help Review & Update Plans, Communications, Vendor Agreements & Processes
Expected & Proposed ACA & Other Federal Health Plan Rules
Practical Strategies For Monitoring & Responding To New Requirements & Changing Rules
Participant Questions
More

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

Claims & Appeals Bootcamp*
July 31, 2012
12:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

HIPAA Bootcamp*
August 14, 2012
12:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:30 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:30 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:30 A.M. Pacific

Health Plan Communications Bootcamp: SBCs, SPDs & Beyond*
August 28, 2012
12:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 11:30 A.M.-1:00 P.M. Central | 10:30 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 9:30 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

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

Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer Leads Workshops

The 2012 Health Plan Update and other Coping With Healthcare Reform Workshops in the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform Series will be lead by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, group health, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, and other insurers, governmental leaders and others on health and other employee benefit. employment, insurance and related matters.

Also a well-known and prolific author and popular speaker Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative, an Editorial Advisory Board Member of the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com) and Employee Benefit News, and various other publications.

A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources and related topics for the ABA, Aspen Publishers, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators and many other organizations. She also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs.

For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see http://www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Registration, Continuing Education & Other Details

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

All Health Plan-U Coping With Health Care Reform programs are approved to be offered for general certification credit by the Texas Department of Insurance, World At Work and HRCI education credit for the time period offered subject to fulfillment all applicable Texas Department of Insurance requirements, completion of required procedures and payment of the additional service processing fee of $10.00. The HIPAA Bootcamp program is Texas Department of Insurance-approved for 1.5 hours of General Credit and .5 Hours of Ethics Credit. The Texas Department of Insurance possesses the final authority to determine whether an individual qualifies to receive requested continuing education credit. Neither Solutions Law Press, Inc., the speaker nor any of their related parties guarantees the approval of credit for any individual or has any liability for any denial of credit. Special fees or other conditions may apply.

Cancellation & Refund Policies

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assists businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com.

CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request

3 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employer, Essential health benefits, group health plan, Health Insurance, health plan costs, insurance plan, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Record $2.3 Million+ H-2A Backpay Order Plus Civil Money Penalty Reminds Businesses Employing Foreign Workers To Manage Compliance

July 10, 2012

Underpaying and failing to meet other H-2A visa program requirements for its employment of temporary foreign agricultural workers was an extremely costly mistake for Yerington, Nevada-based onion grower Peri & Sons.

Peri & Sons must pay a record total of $2,338,700 in back wages to 1,365 workers, plus a $500,000 civil money penalty to the Department of Labor for failing to properly pay foreign agricultural workers working under the H-2A visa program under a consent order entered by U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge Steven Berlin in San Francisco. The consent order announced by the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division today (July 10, 2012) reminds U.S. businesses of the need to meet compliance responsibilities when employing foreign workers and illustrates the significant risks that employers of foreign workers risk by failing to meet minimum wage and hour, overtime, vis, I-9 and other requirements for employing foreign workers.

The record back pay order stems from charges brought by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division after it determined that Peri & Sons violated the FLSA and the H-2A visa program requirements by underpaying H-2A employees involved in irrigation, harvesting, packing and shipping of onions sold in grocery stores nationwide. All of the affected workers came to the U.S. from Mexico under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visa program. In most cases, their earnings fell below the hourly wage required by the program, as well as below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for a brief period of time. Investigators also found that workers were not paid for time spent in mandatory pesticide training or reimbursed for subsistence expenses while traveling to and from the U.S. Additionally, Peri & Sons did not pay the worker’s return transportation costs at the end of the contract period.

The H-2A temporary agricultural worker program permits agricultural employers who expect a shortage of domestic workers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the United States to do temporary or seasonal agricultural work. The employer must file an application stating that a sufficient number of domestic workers are not available and the employment of these workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the U.S. Employers using the H-2A program also must meet a number of specific conditions relating to recruitment, wages, housing, meals and transportation. See more on H-2A visa employment rules here.

Reflective of the Obama Administration’s heavy emphasis of the enforcement of wage and hour and other laws protective of workers, the Peri & Sons order shows the potential risks that employers run when violating these rules. To minimize these exposures, employers of H-2A or other workers employed under special visa programs should carefully manage these programs to ensure their ability to prove compliance with all requirements of the visa program, the FLSA, and other relevant laws. These programs should include careful and ongoing due diligence to maintain a current understanding of all applicable requirements for the legal employment of these workers and the establishment of systemized processes and documentation both to support compliance and to preserve evidence necessary to prove this compliance against possible investigations or charges. When conducting and planning these activities, businesses should keep in mind that employers of foreign workers generally are accountable for meeting all human resources and related laws generally applicale to employees as well as additional visa and other eligibility to work credentialing, documentation, pay and other requirements.

About Ms. Stamer

Recognized in International Who’s Who, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, attorney and management consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has 25 years experience advising and representing private and public employers, staffing and manpower companies, employer and union plan sponsors, employee benefit plans, associations, their fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors, governmental leaders and others on wag hour and other workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and compliance, and related performance and risk management concerns. Her experience includes extensive work advising domestic and international businesses about employment, recruitment, compensation and management of workers and other human resources, employee benefit and other reengineering, performance management, risk management, compliance, public policy and other concerns and opportunities.

A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security privatization law with extensive domestic and international workforce, regulatory and public policy experience, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising U.S. and foreign businesses about the employment of foreign workers in the U.S., as well as other cross-border employment and other workforce management and compliance concerns. In addition, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on human resources and other workforce, health and other employee benefits, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters. She has represented clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice; state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other state and local agencies and regulators; and various foreign governments and their officials.

Ms. Stamer also shares her experience through leadership involvement in a number of human resources and related management and professional organizations An Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for the Institute of Human Resources (IHR/HR.com), Insurance Thought Leaders, Employee Benefit News, and various other highly regarded publications, Ms. Stamer also presently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Representative and in various other professional and civic leadership. She previously has served on the Dallas World Affairs Council Board, and has been active in cross border policy, trade and other activities of the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and a variety of other organizations.

A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer regularly authors materials and conducts workshops and professional, management and other training on employee benefits, human resources, health care, privacy and data security, technology and other compliance and management topics. Ms. Stamer has written and spoken extensively on cross-border migration, workforce, health care, pension, insurance, ethics and internal controls, public policy and other challenges businesses and governments face in connection with cross border or multinational employment or operations. An Editorial Advisory Board member and author for HR.com, Insurance Thought Leaders and many other publications, Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees of a multitude of symposium and other educational programs.

Her publications and insights on these and other related topics appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, American Bar Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, SHRM, The Wall Street Journal, Government Institutes, Inc.,Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, HR.Com, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s services, experience, presentations, publications, and other credentials or to inquire about arranging counseling, training or presentations or other services by Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Record $2.3 Million+ H-2A Backpay Order Plus Civil Money Penalty Reminds Businesses Employing Foreign Workers To Manage Compliance | Affirmative Action, Child Labor, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Employer, Ex Pat, FLSA, H-2A, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, multinational, Visas, wage and hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Defensibility of Criminal & Other Background Check Practices In Light of Labor Department Non-Discrimination Regulation & Enforcement Emphasis

May 25, 2012

Employers, job banks, recruiters and other parties that conduct and rely upon criminal background checks for purposes of screening applicants or making other employment decisions should check and update their practices in response to the announced plans of the U.S. Department of Labor to expand and enforce limitations on employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records as well as the criminal background check requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other applicable laws.

While criminal or other background checks often are mandated or otherwise business justified, employers and others conducting or using background check information need to understand and comply with legal requirements about the use and administration of criminal or other background checks.

Potential Employment Discrimination Exposures From Criminal Background Checks

Over the past several months, Labor Department officials have identified protection of individuals with criminal backgrounds against employment discrimination as a policy and enforcement priority.

In keeping with this goal, the Labor Department Employment and Training Administration (ETA), with the Civil Rights Center (CRC). on May 25, 2012 published updated training guidance for about exclusions based on criminal records, and how they are relevant to the existing nondiscrimination obligations for the public workforce system and certain other entities that receive federal financial assistance to operate Job Banks, to provide assistance to job seekers in locating and obtaining employment, and to assist employers by screening and referring qualified applicants in Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 31-11 (TEGL) along with the following accompanying guidance documents:

Meet FCRA Criminal & Other Background Check Requirements

When conducting such a criminal or other background check using a third-party or the internet, care should be taken to comply with the applicable purpose, notice and consent requirements for conducting third-party conducted background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and otherwise applicable law.

Since criminal and other background investigations generally qualify as a credit check for purposes of the FCRA, employers, recruiters, job banks and other parties conducting background checks for employment related purposes risk significant liability for conducting these activities without providing the proper notifications and obtaining necessary consents. Additional requirements often also may apply under applicable state laws, labor-management contracts, government contracting requirements or other similar requirements. Consequently, before doing any credit or other background check, employers or others should ensure that they have the policies, disclosures, data security and written consents required to comply with the FCRA and other laws.

With these procedures in place, employers or others planning to use criminal or other background checks then should work to manage discrimination and other potential risks associated with potential challenges to their use of the information.

Among other things, businesses should carefully document the business justification for their use of the background check and restrict the data they request and receive to information relevant to that purpose. The collection and receipt of this information should be structured and managed in such a way to mitigate employment discrimination, privacy and other legal risks and to promote defensibility. For instance, proper procedures should be used to lower the risk of a pattern of prohibited discrimination on race, national origin, disability or other similar employment discrimination laws. Likewise, collection or receipt of information such as bankruptcy history or other liability sensitive information should be avoided unless a legally defensible need and appropriate procedures governing use can be demonstrated in operation. Care also should be taken to apply the criteria uniformly. Given ADA, GINA, FACTA and other privacy concerns, employers also should specifically check their data collection and protection procedures for adequacy.

To help with these and other concerns, consider defining and documenting in advance the relevant criteria for the position and why it is relevant. Where possible, try to avoid getting information beyond that defined as relevant which could raise sensitivities. Since the FCRA requires notice if adverse hiring decisions are made, employers also should carefully evaluate and document the basis of their decisions when deciding not to hire or promote individuals based on this information and appropriately safeguard this information against improper use or disclosure.

For Help Or Additional Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your background check or other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, 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 human resources, recruitment, employee benefits, compensation, credentialing, promotion and discipline and related workforce and risk management matters.

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 employment and other services arrangements and assocaited employee benefit, compensation, reductions in force and other severance and other human resources, employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s r management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Tighten Defensibility of Criminal & Other Background Check Practices In Light of Labor Department Non-Discrimination Regulation & Enforcement Emphasis | ADA, Affirmative Action, Bankruptcy, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Disability, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Government Contractors, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Tax | Tagged: background check, criminal background check, Discrimination, Employer, FCRA, job bank | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA $1Million Award Against AirTran Airways Highlights Retaliation Risks

January 18, 2012

A million dollar plus backpay award announced by the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) reminds U.S. employer of the growing importance of taking steps to manage whistleblower and other retaliation claims when dealing with employees who have reported possible safety, discrimination or other activities protected under Federal or state whistleblower or other anti-retaliation laws.

On January 17, 2012, OSHA issued an order requiring AirTran Airways AirTran Airways, a subsidiary of Dallas, Texas-based Southwest Airlines Co., to reinstate and pay more than $1 million in backpay plis interest and compensatory damages to a former pilot who charged AriTran fired him in retaliation for his reporting numerous mechanical concerns.

According to OSHA, the reinstatement and backpay award follows an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program in which OSHA found reasonable cause to believe that the termination of the pilot, whose name is withheld as part of OSHA’s policy, was an act of retaliation in violation of the whistleblower provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, known as AIR21.

According to OSHA, the pilot’s complaint alleged that the airline removed him from flight status on Aug. 23, 2007, pending an investigative hearing regarding a sudden spike in the pilot’s mechanical malfunction reports, or PIREPS. The airline held an internal investigative hearing on Sept. 6, 2007, that lasted 17 minutes. Seven days later, the airline terminated the pilot’s employment, claiming that he did not satisfactorily answer a question regarding the spike in reports. OSHA found that the pilot did not refuse to answer any questions during the hearing, answers to questions were appropriate, and the action taken by the airline was retaliatory.

Either party to the case can file an appeal with the Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges, but such an appeal does not stay the preliminary reinstatement order.

AirTran Airways is a subsidiary of AirTran Holdings Inc. with headquarters in Orlando. On May 2, 2011, Southwest Airlines completed the acquisition of AirTran Holdings Inc. and now operates AirTran Airways as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provision of AIR21, as well as 20 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities, trucking, workplace health and safety, nuclear, pipeline, environmental, rail, maritime, health care, consumer product and food safety laws. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program.

These whistleblower and anti-retaliation provisions are just a small fraction of the growing list of federal and state laws that provide whistleblower or other anti-retaliation protections to employees and others for reporting known or suspected violations or engaging in other activities protected by the applicable law. Other examples include federal employment discrimination, securities, tax, customs, immigration, labor, family or military leave, employee benefits, privacy, antitrust, and a wide range of other laws. Because the prior reporting of information or other exercise or attempted exercise of protected rights often can create presumptions which employers may be required to rebut to avoid whistleblower or other liability under many of these laws, employees increasingly make claims or point to prior reports or activities as a means of challenging or disputing termination or other undesired employer actions.

To better position themselves to prevent or defend against these types of claims, employers need to be prepared both to demonstrate the appropriateness of their employment and discipline actions, as well as to rebut claims of retaliation. As part of these efforts, employers among other things should:

Carefully document and administer employee hiring, promotion, discipline and other practices to document their administration in accordance with applicable law based on valid performance based business justifications;

Clearly communicate and educate management and other employees about the employer’s policies against retaliation and procedures for reporting suspected problems;

Review employee terminations and other actions for patterns or other evidence of correlation to prior protected activities by employees that might evidence potential discrimination or other retaliation;

Establish and communicate clear procedures for reporting potential legal or policy violations that might for the basis of retaliation or whistleblower claims;

Conduct prompt, well-documented investigations of all reports of potential compliance or safety concerns, as well as retaliation claims;

Give clear, well-documented instructions to managers and others involved in investigations or other compliance efforts against retaliation or other misconduct;

Establish and administer monitoring and oversight processes and procedures for possible retaliation or other misconduct against protected parties; and

Provide exit interview and other opportunities for employees to share possible retaliation or other concerns with responsible management trained to properly investigate and redress these concerns.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with these or other human resources, internal controls or risk management matters, please contact the author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization,management attorney, author and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping private and governmental organizations and their management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; schools and other governmental agencies and others design, administer and defend innovative compliance, risk management, workforce, compensation, employee benefit, privacy, procurement and other management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers carry out, audit, manage and defend worker classification,union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, procurement, conflict of interest, discrimination management, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions.

Widely published on workforce risk management and compliance concerns, the immediate past-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Plan Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Employee Benefits Committee, a Council Representative of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, compliance, re-engineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on OSHA $1Million Award Against AirTran Airways Highlights Retaliation Risks | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employer, Employment, employment law, Health Care, Independent Contractor, OSHA, Overtime, payroll tax, Retaliation, Safety, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment Deadline 1/31 On HHS Plan To Let States Define ACA “Essential Benefits” That Concerns Many

December 29, 2011

January 31, 201 is the deadline for employers, insurers, and others with concerns about the proposal of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to delegate authority to individual states to decide the definition of essential benefits for purposes of the state exchange and other requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) on a state-by-state.

As part of its sweeping health care reforms, the Affordable Care Act requires that health insurance plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges), offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as “essential health benefits.” The definition of “essential health benefits” also has significant implications on employers. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers that fail to provide health coverage through an insured or self-insured group health plan that provides the required package of essential health benefits will be required to make payments to help subsidize the cost for their employees to purchase qualifying health care coverage through one of the health care exchanges established pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.

HHS announced its proposal for state determination of the meaning of essential benefits in an Essential Health Benefits Bulletinc (Bulletin) published December 16, 2011. The Bulletin only addresses the services and items covered as “essential benefits” by a health plan, not the cost sharing, such as deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance. HHS says it will address the cost-sharing features in future bulletins and cost-sharing rules will determine the actuarial value of the plan.

While HHS touts its proposal for allowing flexibility to the states, many employers, insurers, union and employer-sponsored health plans and others are concerned. Organizations and individuals concerned about the proposal or its implications should act quickly to prepare and submit comments reflecting their concerns by the January 31, 2012 comment deadline.

HHS Proposal Allows State-By-State Essential Benefit Definition

As proposed in the Bulletin, HHS would give states the flexibility to decide the items and services included in the essential health benefits package required within their states in accordance with the guidance outlined in the Bulletin.

Within the limits established by HHS, states would decide the package of benefits required to be offered as “essential benefits” within their state by selecting a benchmark plan for to set the essential benefit definition for their states. In choosing the benchmark plan that will decide the required essential benefits for their state, states would be required to choose from one of four allowable health insurance plan options set by HHS:

One of the three largest small group plans in the state;
One of the three largest state employee health plans;
One of the three largest federal employee health plan options; or
The largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market.

The benefits and services included in the health insurance plan selected by the state would be the essential health benefits package.

When picking a benchmark plan, HHS intends to continue to require that the states make sure their essential health benefits package at least covers items and services in at least ten categories of care specifically listed as in the Affordable Care Act as included in the definition of essential benefits. These categories are:

Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories:

Ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

Consequently, if a state selects a plan that does not cover all ten categories of care, HHS intends to require the state to examine other benchmark insurance plans, including the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, to determine the type of benefits that will be included in the essential health benefits package.

Proposal Prompts Many Questions & Concerns

HHS says that its proposed approach to allowing states to decide the definition of essential benefits “would give states the flexibility to select a plan that would be equal in scope to the services covered by a typical employer plan in their state” while allowing states and insurers to keep the flexibility to evolve the benefits package with the market as innovative plan designs emerge. However the proposal is drawing criticism from many.

When Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, supporters touted it as ensuring that all Americans would have access to a uniform set of core benefits that the Act refers to as “essential benefits” while promoting efficiency by providing a uniform set of mandate benefits to be provided by all group health plans, health insurers and health insurance exchanges.

The proposal has raised many questions among employers and unions that sponsor self-insured group heath plans for employees and those involved in their design and administration. Since 1974, the preemptive provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) generally have exempted single employer self-insured group health plans and their insurers from the administrative and cost burdens of complying with state insurance laws and regulations.

Among other things, critics complain that the proposal to forgo a uniform national definition will:

Drive up costs by requiring states to use as a benchmark plan programs that are much richer and most costly than the insured or self-insured benefit plans offered by most employers;
Undermine cost savings that would have resulted from the use of a uniform national definition of essential benefits;
Subject insurers, health plans, and employers and unions to conflicting regulatory obligations, create disparities;

Proposal Prompts Many Questions & Concerns

Organizations and individuals concerned about the proposal in the Bulletin will need to move quickly to share their concerns with HHS. Comments are due by January 31, 2012. Parties wishing to comment can send their comments to:EssentialHealthBenefits@cms.hhs.gov.

Comments Off on Comment Deadline 1/31 On HHS Plan To Let States Define ACA “Essential Benefits” That Concerns Many | Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Essential Health Benefis, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Insurer, Mandated Benefits, medical insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, tpa, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Group Health Plans & Insurer To Get More Time To Meet Affordable Care Act Summary of Benefits and Coverage Requirements

December 7, 2011

Delayed Deadline Allows Much Needed Time To Continue Preparations

Group health plans and insurers, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and other services providers are getting more time to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s new Summary of Benefits and Coverage (“SBC”) mandate beyond the March 23, 2012 deadline originally set forth in the Proposed Regulations jointly published by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury (the Departments). Plans, their insurers and administrators should make good use of this time to continue the time consuming planning and preparations expected to be required to comply with the final rules.

As amended by the Affordable Care Act, Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”) § 2715 PHS requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide a “Summary of Benefits and Coverage” and “Uniform Glossary” meeting standards developed by the Departments.

In August, 2011, the Departments jointly published proposed regulations and accompanying templates detailing the content, format, supplements and other requirements that they proposed requiring health plans and health insurers to meet to satisfy the SBC requirements.

If implemented in final form as proposed, group health plans and insurers, their sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries can expect that significant work will be required to evaluate and prepare the SBC and associated adjustments to plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other materials and practices that are likely to be required in response to the new requirements. Since health plan documents and insurance contracts are unlikely to already use the same definitions as the SBC regulations require be used in the Glossary, group health insurers and self-insured group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and other administrators generally will want to review and adjust definitions and other plan document and insurance cotnract provisions to eliminate inconsistencies and address other concerns. Likewise, adjustments to summary plan descriptions, certificates of benefits and other communication materials also likely will be needed. Furthermore, most health insurers and group health plan may want to reevaluate claims and other cost and reserve projections and consider other adjustments in response to potential implications of these adjustments.

As originally proposed by the Departments, health plans and issuers faced a March 23, 2012 deadline to begin complying with the SBC rules. Since August, 2011, we and various other attorneys from the American Bar Association RPTE and Tax leadership, as well as others have shared concerns with representatives of the Departments about the compliance deadlines and other aspects of the Proposed Rules. New guidance released by the Departments in November reflects that the Departments are taking this input to heart.

According to joint guidance issued by the Departments in November, the health plans and insurers will not be expected to comply by March 23. Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) guidance jointly issued by the Departments indicates that health plans and health insurers will not be required to comply with the SBC mandate until after the Departments issue finalize regulations.

According to the FAQ, the Departments’ final regulations, once issued, will include an applicability date that allows group health plans and health insurance issuers “sufficient time to comply.” The FAQ does not indicate when the Departments expect to publish final regulations or the length of the period following this publication that the Departments anticipate health plans and issuers will have to come into compliance.

This news provides welcome relief for group health plans and insurers, and the employers, administrators and others working to update and administer group health plans in response to the Affordable Care Act. Health plans, insurers, their sponsors, administrators and service providers are cautioned to make good use of this added time to begin preparing to respond quickly when regulations are finalized. While the Departments are expected to make various refinements when finalizing the regulations beyond adjusting the compliance deadline, plans and insurers are expected to be required to engage in significant planning and other preparations to meet the revised rules. In light of this, health insurers and group health plans, their sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries generally are advised to continue these preparations based upoln the guidance set forth in the proposed regulations so that they can be prepared to respond in a timely fashion to the final regulations.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Comments Off on Group Health Plans & Insurer To Get More Time To Meet Affordable Care Act Summary of Benefits and Coverage Requirements | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health premiums, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update