Employment | | Page 3

NLRB’s Nailing of Bel Air Hotel Reminder RIFs, Other Reengineering & Transactions Impacting Workforce Requirement Proper Risk Management

October 5, 2012

Severance Deals Get Hotel Bel-Air Nailed By NLRB For Labor Law Violations

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that nails Hotel Bel-Air (Hotel) for offering severance packages to unionized workers highlights one of a range of potentially costly missteps that businesses conducting reductions in force or other re-engineering risk if they fail to properly understand and manage legal requirements when designing and implementing the change.

Since labor and other workforce-related risks are long-standing, some businesses, their leaders and consultants may be tempted to assume that prior experience means these are handled. The fact specific nature of the risks and changing rules and enforcement, however, makes it critical not to be over-confident. Legal and operational mismanagement of these risks can disrupt achievement of the purpose of the change and add significant added cost and exposure for the business and its management. Proper use of qualified legal counsel as part of the process is important both to help identify and properly manage risk and to leverage attorney-client privilege to help shield sensitive communications in the planning and implementation of these activities from discovery.

Employer’s Obligations To Negotiate & Deal With Union

Once a union is recognized as the certified representative of employees in a workplace, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally prohibits the employer from unilaterally changing term and conditions of employment or from going around the union to bargain directly with employees over layoffs, the effects of layoffs and other material terms and conditions of employment. As part of this responsibility, the NLRA and other federal and state laws generally require that employers provide notification to the union of planned reductions in force, plant closings or other operational changes that might impact the workforce and bargain in good faith with the union before conducting layoffs, or offering or making in work rules, compensation, severance or other benefits or other terms or conditions of employment.

In general, an employer’s duty to bargain with a union generally also continues to apply when the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer expires unless and until the parties reach agreement or impasse. While negotiations continue, the employer’s obligation to refrain from making unilateral changes generally encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation unless and until an overall impasse has been reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole. See Pleasantview Nursing Home, 335 NLRB 96 (2001) citing Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991). The NLRB considers negotiations to be in progress, and will not find a genuine impasse to exist, until the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be “futile” or that there is “no realistic possibility that continuation of discussion . . . would be fruitful.” Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 343 NLRB 542 556 (2004).

Because the existence of impasse is a factual determination that depends on a variety of factors, including the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations, the good faith of the parties, the importance of the disputed issues, the parties’ bargaining history, and the length of their negotiations, Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), parties to the negotiation often do not necessarily agree when they have reached impasse. As the September 28 decision by the NLRB against the Hotel shows, employers that act unilaterally based on an overly optimistic determination of impasse suffer significant financial and other operational and legal risks for engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA.

NLRB Nails Hotel Bel-Air For Failing To Bargain, Offering Severance Around Union

In its September 28, 2012 Bel-Air Hotel Decision, the NLRB ruled the Hotel engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA when it offered severance packages to laid off workers in return for the workers’ waiver of recall rights without bargaining to impasse with the union representing its workers, UNITE HERE Local 11 (Union), about the effects of the temporary shutdown.

The NLRB also ruled the Hotel engaged in unlawful direct dealing by contacting the employees about severance packages without going through the Union even though the Hotel’s contract with the union had expired when the Hotel contacted the laid off union employees to offer severance in return for waivers. As a result, the NLRB ordered the Hotel to rescind the waiver and release forms signed by the Union members and to meet and bargain with the Union on these terms.

Bel-Air Hotel Decision Background

The NLRB order against the Hotel resulted from unfair labor practice charges that the Union filed against the Hotel after the Hotel offered severance packages directly to workers in exchange for the workers’ waiver of their recall rights while the workers were laid off during the Hotel’s temporary closure for renovations in 2009.

Before the Hotel offered the severance package directly to the laid off workers, the Hotel and the Union bargained for nine months about the terms of a separation agreement and recall rights for employees who would lose their jobs during a planned 2-year shutdown of the facility for renovation. In April, 2010, the Hotel gave the Union what it said was the “last, best, and final offer” on severance pay for unit employees laid off during the temporary renovation closure. While the Union and the Hotel did talk after the Hotel made this final offer. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach an agreement before their existing collective bargaining agreement expired or before the Hotel shut down the facility for renovation. After the shutdown, the Union and the Hotel stopped formal negotiations but had some “off the record” informal communications until June. With no resolution by the end of June, the Hotel moved forward unilaterally to offer severance directly to the laid off employees as outlined in its final offer.

Although the facility was closed and the employees already laid off when the Hotel’s contract with the Union expired, the Union claimed the Hotel remained obligated to negotiate with the Union. The Union said a flurry of “off-the-record” discussions between the Hotel and the Union leading up to and after the termination showed the parties had not reached impasse. The Union also separately charged that the Hotel violated the NLRA by going around the Union to directly contact employees to offer severance payments in exchange for waiving their right to return to their jobs when the Hotel reopened after renovation.

In response to unfair labor practices charges filed by the Union, Hotel management among other things argued that the Union no longer represented the employees when it offered severance and because the parties’ contract had expired and the parties were at impasse when the Hotel made the offer.

Union Remained Representative Despite Layoff & Temporary Facilities Shutdown

The NLRB found “meritless” the Hotel’s effort to rely upon the NLRB’s decision in Sterling Processing Corp., 291 NLRB 208 (1988) to support the Hotel’s claim that it had no duty to bargain or extend the severance offers through the Union because it made the unilateral severance offer when the facility was closed and the employees were already laid off.

In Sterling, the NLRB found the employer’s unilateral modification of preclosure wages and working conditions did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA because when the employer acted unilaterally, there were no employees for the union to represent because when the employer took its unilateral action, the employer already had permanently closed the facility and terminated all employees with no reasonable expectation of reemployment.

The NLRB ruled that the circumstances when the Hotel acted were distinguishable from Sterling because the unit employees on layoff from the Hotel retained a reasonable expectation of recall from layoff since the Hotel’s closure was only temporary and the Hotel had only laid off, and not yet discharged the employees when it made the unilateral severance offers. According to the NLRB, the terms of the severance offer evidenced the existence of an expectation of recall because under the terms of that offer, employees who accepted a severance payment waived their recall rights. See, Rockwood Energy & Mineral Corp., 299 NLRB 1136, 1139 fn. 11 (1990), enfd. 942 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1991)(finding that lengthy suspension of production did not relieve employer of its bargaining obligation where laid off employees had “some expectation of recall,” and distinguishing Sterling).

No Impasse Because Of Informal “Off The Record” Communications

The Hotel also separately and unsuccessfully argued that its direct offer of severance benefits to laid off employees was not an unfair labor practice because the parties had bargained to impasse before the offer was made. In response to the Union’s claim that a series of “off-the-record” exchanges between the Union and Hotel after the contract expired reflected a continuation of bargaining, the Hotel argued that an impasse existed because the Union was not engaged in good faith negotiations and there was not any possibility that the informal discussions between the Union and the Hotel would result in any fruitful change in the parties positions.

In an effort to support its position, the Hotel management argued that the Union’s negotiation behavior with other Los Angeles hotels showed the Union had a practice of “artificially extend[ing] negotiations in bad faith” that supported the Hotel’s claim that continued negotiation would be futile. The NLRB rejected this argument too. It said evidence that the Union did not bargain in good faith to string out negotiations when negotiating with other businesses as part of a campaign to coerce all hotels city wide to agree to a standard contract had no probative relevance for purposes of determining if the Hotel and the Union had bargained to impasse in their negotiations and did not prove bad faith by the Union for purposes of its negotiation with the Hotel.

Having rejected these and other Hotel arguments and evidence of impasse, the NLRB ruled that the evidence indicated that the parties continued communications had narrowed their differences before and after the Hotel made its last final offer on April 9. Given this progress, the NLRB ruled that parties’ participation in informal off the record discussions well into June were sufficient to show the existence of some possibility that continued negotiations might result in a fruitful change in the parties position sufficient to obligate the Hotel to continue to bargain with the Union.

NLRB Order Carries Heavy Cost for Bel-Air Hotel

Complying the NLRB’s orders to remedy the breach will be painful and expensive for the Hotel, particularly since by the time the order was issued, the renovation was substantially completed.

To fulfill the requirements of the Order, the Hotel must, among other things:

Bargain with the Union as the recognized and exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees about the effects on bargaining unit employees of the temporary shutdown of the hotel for renovation and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed collective bargaining agreement;
Not deal directly with bargaining unit employees about severance, waiver and release or other terms or arrangements relating to the impact of the temporary shutdown on the bargaining unit employees
Rescind the waiver and release agreements signed by individual bargaining unit employees which included the waiver of rehire rights; and
Post a NLRB-mandated written notice in the workplace for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places.

This means that the Hotel will have to work through issues about how to find positions for employees, if any, who originally agreed to waive their rehire rights who now wish to be rehired, as well as engage in expensive bargaining and the implementation of the terms of any resulting collective bargaining agreement.

Union Duties One of Many Potential HR RIF & Deal Traps

The NLRB’s prounion ruling is unsurprising. Since the Obama Administration took office, its NLRB appointments, rule changes and other activism are intended to and are promoting the strength and efforts of labor. See e.g. Labor Risks Rising For Employers Despite NLRB Loss Of Arizona Secret Ballot Challenge : HR Article by Ms. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer .

Collective bargaining responsibilities like those that resulted in the NLRB order against the Hotel are only one of many potential labor, human resources and benefits-related traps that businesses need to negotiate carefully when planning and executing layoffs or other workforce restructurings in connection with cost or other restructurings, business transactions or other activities impacting the workforce.

Some examples of other issues and risks that businesses involved in changes impacting their workforce also may need to manage include but are not limited to the need to manage discrimination, federal and state leave, whistleblower and retaliation, and other general employment-related legal risks and responsibilities; to give Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN) or state law required plant closing or other notifications to workers, unions, government officials, vendors, customers, lenders or other creditors, insurers or others; to disclose, review, modify or terminate contracts, employee benefit plan documents, communications and other materials; to modify fiduciary, officer, board or other assignments and other related insurance, indemnification, bonding and related arrangements; to comply with employee benefit and compensation related plan document, fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, communication, benefit funding or distribution, reporting and disclosure and other Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Internal Revenue Code, securities and other laws and regulations; privacy, trade secret, and other data integration, confidentiality, and information security and management concerns; Sarbanes-Oxley and other securities, accounting or related requirements; system and data integration; and many others.

Because improper handling of these or other responsibilities in connection with these responsibilities can significantly undermine the businesses’ ability to realize the financial and operational goals behind the action, as well as expose the business to potentially costly liability, businesses anticipating or conducting reductions in the force or other activities that will impact their workforce should seek advice and help from qualified legal counsel experienced with these concerns early to mitigate these concerns.

If you have any questions or need help with these or other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on NLRB’s Nailing of Bel Air Hotel Reminder RIFs, Other Reengineering & Transactions Impacting Workforce Requirement Proper Risk Management | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Management, NLLRB, NLRA, reductions in force, Severance, unfair labor practices, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Employment Disability Risk Management As Obama Declares 12/10 National Disability Employment Awareness Month

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.

In his proclaimation today, President Obama reaffirmed his often stated commitment to the aggressive enforcement of disability laws and other efforts to promote opportunities for disabled individuals, stating:

“[My Administration remains committed to helping our businesses, schools, and communities support our entire workforce. To meet this challenge,… we are striving to make it easier to get and keep those jobs by improving compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

As the administration marks the month, U.S. employers and other business leaders can expect the Obama Administration will be stepping up its already aggressive outreach to disabled Americans to promote awareness of their disability law rights and tools for asserting and enforcing these rights.

Business Faces Growing Employment Disability Exposures

As part of his administration’s commitment, the Obama Administration has moved to aggressively enforce the disability and accommodations of teh Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal disability discrimination laws. The reach and effectiveness of these efforts has been enhanced by statutory and regulatory changes that require employers to exercise greater efforts to meet their compliance obligations and manage their disability and other discrimination risks.

ADA Exposures Heightened

The ADA, for instance, generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

Recent enforcement, regulatory and other activities by the EEOC demonstrate 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.

Rehabilitation Act Risks For Government Contractors

Beyond the generally applicable risks applicable to all employers of more than 15 employees under the ADA, federal and state government contractors face additional responsibilities and risks.

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 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures. See, e.g. Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks.

Businesses Should Act To Manage Risks

The ADAAA amendments, the Rehabilitation Act’s expanded reach, and the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify and claim protection as disabled under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other disability discrimination laws.

In light of these and other developments and risks, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC, OFCCP and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment Attorney and Management Consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469..

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource, employee benefits and management experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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 Employment Disability Risk Management As Obama Declares 12/10 National Disability Employment Awareness Month | ADA, Affirmative Action, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Retaliation, USERRA, VEVRRA | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks

September 29, 2012

Federal contractor Nash Finch Co. (Nash Finch) will pay $188,500 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to certain women applicants who the U.S Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) charged Nash rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company’s distribution facility in Lumberton, Minnesota under a consent decree approved by an OFCCP administrative law judge this week.

Nash Finch Settlement Highlights

Minneapolis-based and the second-largest wholesale food distributor in the U.S., Nash Finch distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.

The consent decree resolves an OFCCP administrative action commenced after OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch’s employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. OFCCP asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006. See Solis v. Nash Finch Co., OFCCP Case Number: 2011-OFC-00004. Under the consent decree, Nash Finch will pay $188,500 in back pay and interest to the 84 women. In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.

Reflective of the growing emphasis of OFCCP and other federal agencies on audit and enforcement of compliance with federal employment discrimination and affirmative action laws, the Nash Finch charges and resultant settlement highlight that the Obama Administration’s emphasis on employment discrimination and other civil rights laws expansion and enforcement is resulting in increased liability for employers that fail to take appropriate steps to manage compliance related risks.

Settlements Remind ARRA & Other Federal Government Contractors To Act To Defend Against Heightened Requirements & Enforcement

The OFCCP action and settlement against Nash Finch and other recent OFCCP and other employment discrimination law enforcement actions and settlements against government contractors and other U.S. employers remind U.S. businesses that provide services or supplies directly or as subcontractors on federally funded projects or contracts to review and tighten their employment discrimination, affirmative action and other employment practices in light of the Obama Administration’s heightened emphasis on auditing and enforcing OFCCP and other nondiscrimination and affirmative action rules.

While all U.S businesses face heightened exposures to discrimination-related enforcement risks and liability under the Obama Administration’s enforcement policies, businesses providing services or supplies directly or as subcontractors on projects funded in whole or in part by monies provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) or other federally funded projects or contracts are particularly at risk. 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.

Subject to limited exceptions, government contractors providing services or supplies on ARRA or other government funded contracts or projects must comply both with generally applicable employment discrimination requirements and special statutory and contractual nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and recordkeeping requirements applicable government contractors. For instance, federal law generally requires government contractors to comply with the special equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246 (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). Pursuant to these laws, business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, generally must follow a number of statutory and contractual requirements to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP generally audits and enforces these requirements. Memo to Funding Recipients: Compliance with Applicable Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders. OFCCP has made clear that it will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA. While many government contractors may be tempted to become complacent about OFCCP exposures based on reports of the OFCCP’s relatively low enforcement in the past, see Report Says OFCCP Enforcement Data Show Infrequent Veteran, Disability Bias Findings | Bloomberg BNA recent enforcement data documents OFCCP is getting much more serious and aggressive about auditing and enforcing compliance with its affirmative action and other requirements against government contractors under the Obama Administration. See, OFCCP Enforcement Data is Available on a New DOL Website. See also, Affirmative Action Update: OFCCP Enforcement Statistics Show Increase in Violations.

Government Contractors On ARRA Funded Projects Particularly Exposed

When the contract or project in question receives any funding out of the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided by ARRA, special OFCCP rules applicable to ARRA funded projects necessitates that federal contractors exercise special care to understand and meet their responsibilities and manage associated exposures.

For one thing, the range of businesses required to comply with OFCCP’s equal employment opportunity requirements for government contractors is broader. Government contractors who sometimes qualify as exempt from certain OFCCP rules may not qualify as exempt when working on ARRA funded projects. Government contractors that on other types of federally-funded projects might qualify as exempt from certain OFCCP requirements often are unaware that the range of federal contractors required to comply with the OFCCP equal employment opportunity and related rules of ARRA is much broader than often applies for federal projects funded from other sources. Smaller government contractors run the risk of unknowingly incurring liability by mistakenly assuming that the small size of their contract exempts them from otherwise applicable OFCCP requirements. Consequently, before relying on any assumed exemption, a government contractor providing goods or services for ARRA-funded project directly or as a subcontractor should specifically verify the applicability of those exemptions and document that analysis.

Furthermore, all government contractors on ARRA-funded projects need to understand that they operate subject to heightened compliance and enforcement scrutiny. The OFCCP particularly scrutinizes government contractor equal employment opportunity and other civil rights requirements on ARRA funded projects. The “Procedures for Scheduling and Conducting Compliance Evaluations of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Funded Contractors” issued July 7, 2009. See OFCCP Order No. ADM 0901/SEL the “ARRA Procedures”) subject government contractors on ARRA funded projects to special rules and heightened OFCCP oversight. OFCCP has established separate scheduling procedures to provide for compliance evaluations of ARRA funded contractors separate from those usually applicable to government contractors because ARRA also obligates OFCCP separately to track its ARRA-related and non-ARRA-related enforcement activities.

The ARRA Procedures require that Regional, District and Area offices conduct a full compliance evaluation, including a full desk audit and onsite review, of every ARRA funded contractor establishment scheduled, even in the absence of systemic discrimination indicators. Normally applied by OFCCP to non-ARRA government contract reviews, Active Case Management (ACM) procedures normally allow OFCCP to conduct only an abbreviated desk audit in the absence of systematic discrimination indicators in non-ARRA compliance evaluations. These ACM procedures will not be used in ARRA compliance evaluations.

Due to the special nature of ARRA, OFCCP also has indicated that the ARRA compliance evaluations will not apply the following scheduling exceptions typically applicable in non-ARRA contract compliance reviews. For instance, OFCCP ARRA procedures state:

No more than 25 establishments per contractor exception: Presently, for contractors with multiple establishments, the Federal Contractor Scheduling System (FCSS) limits the number of compliance evaluations scheduled to 25 new evaluations during a scheduling cycle. The 25-establishment limit does not apply to ARRA compliance evaluations.
Two year exception: Traditionally, contractor establishments that have been reviewed by OFCCP are excepted from further review for a 24-month period. Under ARRA scheduling procedures, ARRA funded contractor establishments may be eligible for an ARRA compliance evaluation even if they have been reviewed within the previous 24 months. However, pre-award clearance is not required for contractor establishments reviewed by OFCCP within the past 24 months.

However, ARRA scheduling procedures will apply the following scheduling exceptions:

ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an FCSS compliance evaluation will be excepted from scheduling and review under ARRA procedures for six months from the date of the FCSS case closure.
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA compliance evaluation will not be subject to another ARRA evaluation.
ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA evaluation will also be excepted from scheduling for a standard OFCCP compliance evaluation, pursuant to FCSS, for 24 months from the date of closure of the ARRA compliance evaluation.

ARRA funded contractors also are subject to other special pre-award clearance, pre-award intake, pre-award classification and other special procedures. The ARRA Procedures also set for special requirements particularly applicable to construction contracts funded by ARRA.

The special procedures and heightened compliance review procedures provided for under the ARRA Procedures indicate that government contractors or subcontractors providing services or supplies on projects funded with ARRA funds will want to place special attention on compliance with OFCCP and other federal equal employment opportunity and other employment regulation compliance.

Government Contractors, Other US Employers Urged To Act To Manage Exposures

In the face of the rising emphasis of OFCCP, the EEOC and other federal and state agencies on these audit and enforcement activities, government contractors and other U.S. businesses should act to position themselves to defend against likely challenges and scrutiny. All government contractors and other businesses should review and tighten the adequacy of their existing compliance and risk management practices to promote and document compliance. These efforts should focus on all relevant hiring, recruitment, promotion, compensation, recordkeeping and reporting policies and practices internally, as well as those of any recruiting agencies, subcontractors or other business partners whose actions might impact on compliance. Among other things, these steps should include the following:

Government contractors and subcontractors should specifically review their existing or proposed contracts and involvements to identify projects or contracts which may involve federal or state contracts or funding that could trigger responsibility. In this respect, businesses should conduct well-documented inquiries when proposing and accepting contracts to ensure that potential obligations as a government contractor are not overlooked because of inadequate intake procedures. Businesses also should keep in mind that ARRA and other federal program funds often may be filtered through a complex maze of federal grants or program funding to states or other organizations, which may pass along government contractor status and liability when subcontracting for services as part of the implementation of broader programs. Since the existence of these obligations often is signaled by contractual representations in the contracts with these parties, careful review of contractual or bid specifications and commitments is essential. However, it also generally is advisable also to inquire about whether the requested products or services are provided pursuant to programs or contracts subject to these requirements early in the process.
In addition to working to identify contracts and arrangements that are covered by OFCCP or other requirements, government contractors and other businesses also should reconfirm and continuously monitor the specific reporting, affirmative action, and other requirements that apply to any programs that may be subject to OFCCP requirements to ensure that they fully understand and implement appropriate procedures to comply with these conditions as well as pass along the obligation to make similarly necessary arrangements to any subcontractors or suppliers that the government contractor involves as a subcontractor.
Throughout the course of the contract, the government contractor also should take steps to maintain and file all required reports and monitor and audit operational compliance with these and other requirements.
The organization should develop and administer appropriate procedures for monitoring and investigating potential compliance concerns and maintaining documentation of that activity. Any known potential deficiencies or complaints should be promptly investigated and redressed with the assistance of qualified counsel in a prompt manner to mitigate potential risks.
Documentation should be carefully retained and organized on a real time and continuous basis to faciliate efficiency and effectiveness in completing required reports, monitoring compliance indicators and responding to OFCCP, EEOC or private plaintiff charges as well as other compliance inquiries.
Any audit inquiries or charges should be promptly referred to qualified legal counsel for timely evaluation and response.
When available and affordable, management should consider securing appropriate employment practices liability coverage, indemnification from business partners and other liability protection and assurance to help mitigate investigagtion and defense costs.
Board members or other senior management should include periodic review of compliance in their agenda.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment, employee benefits, contracting or other risk management or internal controls compliance practices, responding to an OFCCP, EEOC or other government or private plaintiff charge or investigation, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce or compliance management, employee benefits, compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Settlement of OFCCP Employment Discrimination Charge Reminder To ARRA, Other Government Contractors Of Heightened Enforcement Risks | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.25M NLRB Backpay Order Highlights Risks of Mismanaging Union Risks In Health Care & Others M&A Deals

September 23, 2012

California nursing home buyer must pay estimated $1.25 million in backpay and interest, recognize union & hire 50 employees of seller following purchase

Last week’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order requiring the buyer of a California nursing home to pay approximately $1.25 million in backpay and interest, rehire 50 employees and recognize the seller’s union reminders buyers of union-organized businesses of some of the significant risks of mishandling union-related obligations in merger and acquisition, bankruptcy and other corporate transactions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other federal labor laws.

Buyer’s Obligations To Honor Seller’s Collective Bargaining Obligations

Under the NLRA, new owners of a union facility that are “successors” of the seller generally must recognize and bargain with the existing union if “the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of employees hired by the new employer were represented by a recently certified bargaining agent.” See NLRB v. Burns Sec. Servs., 406 U.S. 272, 281 (1972).

In assembling its workforce, a successor employer also generally “may not refuse to hire the predecessor’s employees solely because they were represented by a union or to avoid having to recognize a union.” U.S. Marine Corp., 293 NLRB 669, 670 (1989), enfd., 944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1991).

Nasaky, Inc. NLRB Order

Last week’s NLRB Order requires Nasaky, Inc., the buyer of the Yuba Skilled Nursing Center in Yuba City, California, to recognize and honor collective bargaining obligations that the seller Nazareth Enterprises owed the before the sale and rehire and pay backpay and interest to make whole 50 of the seller’s former employees who the NLRB determined Nasaky, Inc. wrongfully refused to hire when it took over the facility from the prior owner, Nazareth Enterprises.

Before Nasaky, Inc. bought the nursing home, many of the employees at the nursing home were represented by the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (Union). After Nasaky, Inc. agreed to buy the facility but before it took control of its operations, Nasaky, Inc. advertised in the media for new workers to staff the facility and told existing employees at the facility that they must reapply to have a chance of keeping their jobs under the new ownership.

When Nasaky, Inc. took operating control of the Facility, facility operations continued as before with the same patients receiving the same services. The main difference was the workforce. The new staff included 90 employees in erstwhile bargaining unit positions, of which forty were former employees of the predecessor employer and fifty were newcomers. Nasaky, Inc. then took the position that the change in the workforce excused it from responsibility for recognizing or bargaining with the Union or honoring the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and seller Nazareth Enterprises.

When the union demanded that Nasaky, Inc. recognize the Union and honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with Nazareth Enterprises, Nasaky, Inc. refused. Instead, Nasaky, Inc. notified the union that it would not allow the Union on its premises, would not honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with the seller, and did not accept any of the predecessor’s terms and conditions of employment. The Union then filed charges with the NLRB, charging that Nazareth Enterprises had breached its obligations as a successor under the NLRA.

After NLRB Regional Director Joseph F. Frankl agreed and issued a complaint, California Administrative Law Judge Gerald Etchingham found all the allegations true based on a two-day hearing. He rejected all of Nasaky’s explanations for why it declined to hire most of those who had worked for the previous employer. See ALJ Decision. Since Nasaky, Inc did not file exceptions, the NLRB ordered Nasaky, Inc. immediately to recognize and bargain with the Union, hire the former employees and make them whole. The amount of backpay and interest is expected to approximate $1.25 million.

Managing Labor Exposures In Business Transactions

The NLRB’s order against Nasaky, Inc. highlights some of the business and operational risks that buyers and sellers can face if labor-management relations are misperceived or mismanaged in connection with business transactions. Because the existence of collective bargaining agreements or other labor obligations can substantially affect the operational flexibility of a buyer, buyers need to investigate and carefully evaluate the potential existence and nature of their obligations as part of their due diligence strategy before the transaction. A well-considered understanding of whether the structure of the transaction is likely to result in the buyer being considered a successor for purposes of union organizing and collective bargaining obligations also is very important so that the buyer and seller can properly appreciate and deal with any resulting responsibilities.

Beyond the potential duty to recognize a seller’s collective bargaining obligations, buyers and sellers also should consider the potential consequences of the proposed transaction on severance, pension, health, layoff and recall and other rights and obligations that may arise. At minimum, the existence of these responsibilities and their attendant costs are likely to impact the course of the negotiations.

When a worksite is union organized, for instance, additional obligations may arise in the handling of reductions in force or other transactions as a result of the union presence. For example, in addition to otherwise applicable responsibilities applicable to non-union affected transaction, the Worker Adjustment Retraining Act (WARN) and other plant closing laws and/or collective bargaining agreements may impose special notification or other requirements before a reduction in force or other transaction related activities.

Similarly, the existence of collective bargaining agreements also may trigger obligations for one or both parties to engage in collective bargaining over contemplated changes in terms and conditions of employment, to provide severance, to accellerate or fund severance, benefits or other obligations, to provide continued health or other coverage, to honor seniority, recall or other rights or deal with a host of other special contractual obligations.

Where the collective bargaining arrangements of the seller currently or in the past have included obligations to contribute to a multiemployer, collectively bargained pension or welfare plan, the buyer and seller also need to consider both the potential for withdrawal liability or other obligations and any opportunities to minimize these exposures in structuring the allocation of the arrangement. In this case, both parties need to recognize that differences exist between the federals for determining when successor liability results under the withdrawal liability rules than typically apply other labor and employment law purposes. While buyers and sellers often presume that the stock versus assess sale distinction that typically applies for many other legal purposes will apply, this can be an expensive mistake in the case of determining a buyer’s obligation to honor the seller’s collective bargaining obligations post deal. Likewise, buyers can be exposed to multiemployer successor liability from asset transactions, although it may be possible to mitigate or avoid such liabilities by incorporating appropriate representations in the sale documents or through other steps. Since these multiemployer withdrawal and contribution liabilities generally attach on a controlled group basis, both parties need to properly appreciate and address these concerns early in the transaction to mitigate their risks and properly value the transaction.

In light of these and other potential labor-related risks that may affect corporate and other business transactions, parties contemplating or participating in these transactions are urged to engage and consult with competent legal counsel with specific experience in such labor management relations and multiemployer benefit plan matters early in the process.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Collective Bargaining, collectively bargained, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Labor-Management, multiemployer health plans, multiemployer pension plans, NLRA, NLRB, Union, withdrawal liability | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

As EEOC Steps Up ADA Accommodation Enforcement, New DOD Apple App, Other Resources Released

September 18, 2012

With the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies prioritizing disability discrimination law enforcement, businesses and individuals looking to find solutions to help accommodate persons with disabilities may find a new free app for Apple Devices from the Department of Defense (DOD) Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program helpful.

New DOD Accommodation Apple App & Other Accommodation Aids

The DOD Apple application is an example of the many new resources that the federal government is providing to promote compliance with disability discrimination laws and to help people with disabilities under the Obama Administration.

The DOD Apple application now available in the iTunes App Store lets users browse the latest news and tips on assistive technology, scan CAP’s calendar of events and stay connected to the disability community. DOD says an Android version is coming soon.

CAP works to make the Federal Government a model employer of people with disabilities by providing job accommodations and equal access to electronic and information technology. With disabilities and other discrimination law compliance audit and enforcement rising, this new application provides another timely resource for government contractors and agencies, and other businesses looking to provide accommodations and manage disability risks.

The DOD application is just one of many emerging training and other tools that the agencies are rolling out to promote employment and other opportunities for people with disabilities. The Federal Government is devoting increasing resources to educating the disabled about resources including employment discrimination protections and other aids. The October 10 Work Incentive Seminar Event webinar is another example. To be held on October 10, 2012 from 3 – 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, the webinar is for people who receive Social Security disability benefits and want to learn how the Ticket to Work program can help them earn money and become financially independent. It also will discuss writing a resume, job interview tips, whether or not to discuss your disability with a potential employer and tips for on the job success. Officials invites interested parties to register online or call 1-866-968-7842 (V) or 1-866-833-2967 (TTY/TDD).

Rising Liability & Enforcement Make Accommodation & Other Disability Law Risk Management Critical

Managing disability risks and meeting accommodation obligations is increasingly important as US government agencies place growing emphasis on enforcing disability discrimination laws and regulations that increasingly result in significant liability for U.S. businesses.

For instance, in June, 2012, the U.S. Justice Department announced a $10,250,000 settlement with JPI Construction L.P. (JPI) and six other JPI firms is the largest-ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement. The settlement resolves Justice Department charges the JPI and its affiliates illegally discriminated on the basis of disability in the design and construction of multifamily housing complexes.

Under the settlement of disability charges initiated against JPI a few years ago, JPI will pay $10,250,000 into an accessibility fund to update properties so they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and to increase the availability of housing that is accessible to people with disabilities.

The record settlement follows the reaffirmation of the Obama Administration’s continuing committment to find and punish companies that illegally discriminate or fail to provide required accommodations in violation of Federal disability discrimination laws made by President Obama and others to mark the 13th Anniversary of the June 22, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C.

As part of that anniversary celebration of Olmstead, the Obama Administration reaffirmed its continuing commitment to fight disability discriminated and touted the success of its “significant progress continuing to enforce Olmstead as well as more broadly helping to level the playing field for people with disabilities.”

In Olmstead, the Supreme Court ruled in that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the ADA.

In marking the 13th anniversary of this decision, President Obama said, “As we mark the anniversary of this historic civil rights decision, we reaffirm our commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

In reaffirming this commitment, the Administration highlighted its past and continuing efforts to enforce disability discrimination laws, as well as other activities to support individuals with disability.

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a website dedicated to Olmstead enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes.

These Justice Department efforts also are reflected in the companion enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute disability discrimination by the Labor Department Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in employment, the HUD and related areas, the Department of Education in education and related fields and a host of other agencies.

The enforcement of disability discrimination and accommodation requirements in the employment space is even more zealous making big dollar EEOC and private plaintiff judgements and settlements increasingly common. See, e.g. Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

Where the entity is a private or government agency that is a government contractor or receiving other federal funds or grants, compliance with the ADA and other nondiscrimination and civil rights laws is particularly important as the contracts or regulations pursuant to which these funds are granted typically require compliance with these and other special nondiscrimination rules. In the case of funds provided under the 2009 Stimulus Bill, the scope of businesses subject to these requirements and the likelihood of audits was specifically increased in many ways, making recipients of these funds at particular risk for failing to fulfill requirements.

These Federal enforcement activities are further heightened by rising private litigation of disability claims. These public and private actions are encouraged by changes made by Congress to the ADA, which make it easier for plaintiff’s bringing disabilities claims to win, as well as the proactive agenda of the Obama Administration in enforcing disability discrimination laws.

In light of these continuing enforcement efforts, businesses should continue and heighten their diligence against possible disability discrimination exposures by strengthening policies, practices, training and documentation to keep up compliance and to position to defend against possible charges.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Risks Rising For Employers Despite NLRB Loss Of Arizona Secret Ballot Challenge

September 6, 2012

Businesses concerned about Obama Administration-backed efforts to promote its pro-labor agenda must stay diligent despite the set back suffered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in its attempt to a Federal Judge to challenge state laws that purport to require secret balloting in union elections in NLRB v. State of Arizona.

Federal District Judge Frederick J. Martone handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with NLRB efforts to strengthen labor organizing powers by restricting secret ballot protections when he rejected the NLRB claims that an Arizona Constitutional Amendment mandating secret balloting in union elections was an unconstitutional infringement on the NLRB’s powers in his September 5, 2012 decision in NLRB v. State of Arizona, the Court left the door open for a potentially successful challenge to the Arizona secret ballot amendment in the future depending on how Arizona applies the law. Furthermore, considered in the context of the Obama Administration’s broader pro-union regulatory and enforcement agenda, the NLRB’s challenge to the Arizona and other state secret ballot laws reminds businesses that their operation face a minefield of mounting labor-management relations risks icluding many that create traps for management sometimes even in the case of non-union workplaces. In light of these expanding exposures, business leaders should update their policies and practices to mitigate the rising risks while keeping a close eye on the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to expand the power of organized labor by challenging secret ballot mandates in Arizona and other states and the plethora of other pro-union regulatory and enforcement efforts.

NLRB Attacks On Workers’ Secret Balloting Rights

Undermining worker’s secret ballot rights is a key initiative that organized labor with the support of the Obama Administration has promoted to help union organization efforts.

Secret balloting of workers in union organizing elections is designed to promote the ability of worker’s to vote their wishes free from the fear of retaliation by unions or management. It has been a key element of the NLRA since its enactment.

The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace generally is a two-step process that begins with the submission by organizers to the NLRB of a petition or authorization card signed by at least 30% of the employees requesting recognition of the union. Under existing law, once the NLRB verifies that the organizers have met the petition or authorization card requirement, it generally orders a secret ballot election unless more than 50% of the workers have signed authorization cards and either:

The employer notifies the NLRB that it is waiving the secret ballot and voluntarily recognizing the union; or
The NLRB orders the employer to recognize a union based on the NLRB’s determination that the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.

Since the Obama Administration came to power, however, labor with the support of the NLRB and the Obama Administration have included efforts to eliminate or get around secret balloting as part of their broader campaign to strengthen and promote unions and their power. These efforts are reflected in the sharp increase in orders by the NLRB with new Obama appointees that employers recognize unions without balloting, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are pushing to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make union recognition mandatory without any balloting when the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, and challenges to state laws that would impede these efforts like that brought against the State of Arizona. While Congressional Democrats and the Administration have thus far failed to get the legislation passed, they continue to voice their support for and intention to pursue its enactment after the elections in November.

NLRB’s Challenge To Arizona Constitution’s Secret Ballot Provision

In NLRB v. State of Arizona, Judge Frederick J. Martone on September 5, 2012 handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with its efforts to avoid or cut secret ballot protection when it granted the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss the case but left the door open for future action.

As Federal legislation and enforcement actions that would limit workers’ rights to vote in a secret ballot rights have continued, Arizona and various other states have enacted laws to protect secret ballot rights in their states.

In January 2011, the NLRB advised Arizona and three other states that recently adopted “secret-ballot amendments” conflicted with longstanding federal labor law by restricting the methods by which employees can choose a union. When no agreement could be reached, the NLRB filed suit to have the Arizona amendment declared unconstitutional.

The Arizona lawsuit challenged a 2010 constitutional amendment to the Arizona Constitution that states”[t]he right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation is fundamental and shall be guaranteed where local, state or federal law permits or requires elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation.” Arizona Constitution, Article 2 § 37. In its lawsuit, the NLRB asked the Federal Court to declare Article 2 § 37 unconstitutional and preempted to the extent that it applies to private employers, private employees, and labor organizations subject to the NLRA on the grounds that the state secret ballot rule “creates a state forum to protect employee representation rights, a task which Congress assigned exclusively to the NLRB.

Among its other efforts to defend the statute, Arizona argued there was no preemption because the state’s “guarantee” of a secret ballot election would only apply if the voluntary recognition option is not selected.

In reaching its ruling, the Federal Court hung its hat on this argument. “It is possible that state litigation invoking (the amendment) may impermissibly clash with the NLRB’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes over employee recognition, conduct secret ballot elections, and address unfair labor practices,” Judge Martone wrote. However, because the amendment has not yet been applied, Judge Martone wrote that he could not assume that it would conflict with the NLRA.

Arizona Decision A Temporary Victory In Battle In Labor-Management Relations War

While the court rejected the NLRB challenge of the Arizona secret ballot requirement this week, the NLRB’s announced disagreement with the decision coupled with the limited scope of the ruling makes clear that businesses watch for another NLRB challenge based on the implementation of the law as well as other new regulatory and enforcement traps for employers.

The court battle over Arizona’s secret ballot amendment is just one of the many areas where the NLRB under the Obama Administration is pursuing a pro-union agenda. In addition to challenging state laws that might operate to restrict union organizing or other activities, the NLRB also has adopted and is promoting the adoption of other pro-labor rules as well as stepping up enforcement on behalf of labor. See e.g., NLRB Moves To Promote Non-Union Employee Use of Collective Action Rights By Launching Webpage; NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints Formal Proceedings Comments Feed; NLRB Settlement Shows Care Necessary When Using Social Networking & Other Policies Restricting Employee Communications. As part of these efforts, for instance, the NLRB increasingly is challenging the authority of employers to enforce mandatory arbitration provisions in employee handbooks or employment agreements, to regulate social media, and to engage in a broad range of other common employer practices while at the same time, it is using its regulatory powers to promote employer posting and other requirements designed to educate workers about their organizational rights. As many of these new rules apply both to unionized workplaces and ununionized workplace, these and other evolving rules often leave all employers to significant and often underappreciated labor law risks in a broad range of circumstances. This risk tends to take on particular significance for unorganized workforces due to a low awareness or appreciation of these changes or their implications on unorganized workforces by their management team. Mistakes are increasingly costly in the current enforcement environment.

Costly Consequences For Employers

The statistics show the cost of management mishandling of labor relations in today’s environment is expensive and growing. This pro-labor regulatory and enforcement agenda as resulted in a significant rise in NLRB unfair labor practice charges in recent years. According to NLRB statistics, the number of unfair labor practice charges brought by the NLRB steadily rose from 2009 to 2011. The number of charges filed by was 1,342 in 2011, 1,242 in 2010, 1,166 in 2009 and 1,108 in 2008. Moreover, NLRB statistics also document that backpay and other remedies also have risen sharply during this period. For instance, in 2008, the NLRB ordered a total of $68,800,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines in 9,400 cases. In contrast, in 2009, the NLRB ordered $77,700,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines against employers even though the number of cases dropped to 8,700,000 cases. This trend continued in 2010, where out of 8,300 cases, the NLRB ordered employers to pay $86,100,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines. See NLRB Statistics. See also NLRB Case Decisions.

In light of this increased activism, employers should exercise care when using mandatory arbitration, compensation gag rule, or other similar provisions; dealing with requests for employee representation by union and non-union employees in organizing, contracting and even disciplinary actions; establishing and administering social networking, communication and other policies; and a wide range of other situations. In addition, employers concerned about these or other labor activities should consult competent counsel for advice about appropriate options and risks for dealing with these activities.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the NLRA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource, labor and employment and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, labor management, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of Ms. Stamer’s other recent updates, including:

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: Collective Bargaining, Corporate Compliance, Employers, Employment, Health Plans, Human Resources, Labor, Labor-Management, Risk Management, Unfair Labor Practice, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Wal-Mart Settlement Shows ADA Risks When Considering Employee Return To Work Accommodation Requests & Inquiries

August 23, 2012

From handling requests for light duty or other modifications follow a leave to investigating the medical justification for leaves or the fitness of an employee to return to work following a medical absence, employers need to use care to manage disability discrimination exposures.

Today’s announcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Wal-Mart) will pay $50,000 in back pay and damages to settle an EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit highlights the potential disability discrimination risks that employers can face when deciding not to provide a requested accommodation to a worker returning from medical leave while other recent enforcement actions show ADA risks from simply making medical inquiries to a worker on or returning from medical leave.

In its lawsuit against Wal-Mart, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the EEOC charged that a Carlsbad, N.M Wal-Mart store violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing a part-time sales clerk, Marcia Arney because the store refused to provide temporary accommodations ordered by her physician following a period of medical leave.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, when Arney, a 22-year Wal-Mart employee, showed the store manager a note from her doctor requesting an accommodation involving periodic breaks off her feet, the manager refused to return her to her job unless she obtained a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC claims that had Wal-Mart inquired further, it would have known the accommodation need was temporary and in any case, that Wal-Mart easily could have accommodated the restriction.

Under the consent decree settling the suit, Wal-Mart will conduct annual live ADA training of management officials at its Carlsbad store and post a notice on its agreement with the EEOC so that employees are aware of procedures for reporting disability discrimination. Wal-Mart also committed to not require disabled workers to produce a full release from their doctor upon returning from a medical leave. Further, Wal-Mart agreed to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees to find a reasonable accommodation to assist them in performing their jobs and to report future requests for accommodation, as well as charges and lawsuits alleging disability discrimination to the EEOC for the duration of the decree.

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations reflect Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to make sure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a disabled person with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Wal-Mart, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Disabled employees or applicants that can prove they fully were denied reasonable accommodations or otherwise subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

The lawsuit against Wal-Mart is part of a wave of lawsuits in which the EEOC or other agencies under the Obama Administration are aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In the Wal-Mart case, the suit challenged an employer’s refusal to provide requested accommodations. In other cases, however, the EEOC or other agencies under the Obama Administration also have challenged medical inquiries made by an employer to employees during or returning from leave. Both types of suits send clear signals that employers should use care in making medical inquiries and responding to requests for accommodation from employees taking or returning from medical leaves. See, e.g., Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks , businesses generally should act to manage their exposures. Management needs to recognize the likely need to defend medical inquiries, decisions to refuse accommodation requests or other similar actions that arise when dealing with employees taking or returning from medical leave due to a disability, illness or injury. Employers need to critically check and document the legitimate business justification for making a medical inquiry or refusing a requested accommodation based on a well-documented investigation and analysis tailored to the specific situation of each requesting employee.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information that could be helpful or hurtful in the event of a discrimination charge. Businesses need to ensure that all required records and statistics are collected. In addition, businesses also should consider strengthening record creation and retention efforts to help preserve other evidence that could be invaluable to defending charges and change the way that decisions are made and documented to position their organizations to more effectively demonstrate the defensibility of their employment and other business activities against potential nondiscrimination charges.

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.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Employer Pays $475,000 To Settle ADA Discrimination Lawsuit Challenging Medical Fitness Testing For EMTs, Firefighters & Other Public Safety Worker’s

August 13, 2012

Employers that require employees to submit to medical examinations, question employees about physician or mental conditions or disabilities while on medical leave or for other fitness for duty assessments, or engage in other similar activities should evaluate the defensibility of those practices in light of the growing challenges to these and other employee screening practices by the Obama Administration and private plaintiff attorneys like the Justice Department disability discrimination complaint that lead to a $475,000 settlement against Baltimore County, Maryland.

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

On August 7, 2012, the Justice Department announced that Baltimore County, Maryland will pay $475,000 and change its hiring procedures to resolve a Justice Department lawsuit filed that charged the county violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and disability-related inquiries without a proper reason, and by excluding applicants from emergency medical technician (EMT) positions because of their diabetes. The prosecution is notable both for the Justice Department’s challenge of health screenings of EMTs and other workers in key safety positions generally as well as the Justice Department’s challenges to the employer’s medical inquiries to workers on medical leave.

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions concerning disability-related inquiries and medical examinations reflect Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to ensure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently perform the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a disabled person with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Baltimore County settlement, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland is one in a growing series of lawsuits in which the Justice Department or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In its lawsuit against the County, the Justice Department complaint identified 10 current and former police officers, firefighters, EMTs, civilian employees and applicants who were allegedly subjected to inappropriate and intrusive medical examinations and/or other disability-based discrimination. Justice Department officials claimed the County required some employees to undergo medical examinations or respond to medical inquiries that were unrelated to their ability to perform the functions of their jobs. The complaint also alleged the County required employees to submit to medical examinations that were improperly timed, such as requiring an employee who was on medical leave and undergoing medical treatment to submit to a medical exam even though the employee was not attempting to return to work yet.

According to the complaint, numerous affected employees – some of whom had worked for the County for decades – submitted to the improper medical exams for fear of discipline or termination if they refused. The complaint also alleges that the county retaliated against an employee who tried to caution against the unlawful medical exams and refused to hire two qualified applicants for EMT positions because they had diabetes.

In the proposed consent decree filed on August 7, 2012 and awaiting District Court approval, the County seeks to resolve the lawsuit by agreeing to:

Pay $475,000 to the complainants and provide additional work-related benefits (including retirement benefits and back pay, plus interest);
Adopt new policies and procedures regarding the administration of medical examinations and inquiries;
Refrain from using the services of the medical examiner who conducted the overbroad medical examinations in question;
End the automatic exclusion of job applicants who have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; and
Give ADA training to all current supervisory employees and all employees who participate in making personnel decisions.

Obama Administration Aggressively Enforcing & Interpreting Employment & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

The Baltimore County suit is reflective of the aggressive emphasis that the Obama Administration is placing on challenging employers that require employees to undergo medical screening, respond to medical inquiries or engage in other practices that the EEOC, Justice Department or other Obama Administration officials under Title I of the ADA, as well as its heavy emphasis upon enforcement of the ADA and other disability discrimination laws against U.S. businesses and state and local government agencies generally.

The Justice Department action against Baltimore County is part of the Obama Administration’s sweeping effort to enforce employment and other disability discrimination laws against businesses and state and local government agencies alike. While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. This enforcement targets both public employers like Baltimore County, and private employers. In the private employer arena, for instance, the EEOC earlier this year sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the ADA by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

As illustrated by the suits against Baltimore County, Texas Wendy’s and many other public and private employers, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

Defending disability discrimination charges has become more complicated due to both the aggressive interpretation and enforcement of the ADA under the Obama Administration and amendments to the ADA that aid private plaintiffs, the EEOC, the Justice Department and others to prove their case. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, signed into law on September 25, 2008, broadened the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the ADAAA:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes. Given the Obama Administration’s well-documented, self-touted activism of the EEOC, Justice Department and other federal agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their employment disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled taking into account both the broadened disability definition and the aggressive interpretative stance of the Obama Administration. Businesses also generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to promote the ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

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.

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

Guarding against disability discrimination in employment is not the only area that businesses need to prepare to defend against. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department has aggressively enforced the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws against state agencies and private businesses that it perceives to have improperly discriminated against disabled individuals. For instance, the Justice Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. Statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes have expanded the scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws and risks of charges of discrimination.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

New EEOC State Discrimination Charge Data Helpful Employer Risk Assessment Tool Discrimination Exposures Grow

June 26, 2012

Tables Present Employment Discrimination Statistics in User-Friendly Format

New employment discrimination charge statistics made available online by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May, 2012 provide a helpful risk assessment tool for private sector employers looking to understand and decide where to deploy resources to management their employment discrimination exposures.

In May, the EEOC put private sector workplace discrimination charge statistics for each of the nation’s 50 states and U.S. Territories for fiscal years 2009-2011 online. These data provide a look at EEOC charge receipts, broken down by the basis of discrimination, as well as the percent of total state and national charges. The state data tables are available online at http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges_by_state.cfm.

The EEOC plans to update the state data each fiscal year.

The availability of these statistics comes at an opportune time. Disability and other discrimination challenges are rising. Since taking office, President Obama has made enforcement of disability and other employment discrimination laws a top priority by both pursing enforcement directly and stepping up public outreach and education efforts to promote awareness and encourage private enforcement. These efforts have been further strengthened by statutory and regulatory amendments to disability discrimination and other discrimination laws. As a result of these developments and a tightening job market, discrimination claims are on the rise.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks , businesses generally should act to manage their exposures. Management should exercise caution to carefully design and implement employment discrimination and related employment policies. They should implement exit interview, hotline and other practices to help detect and resolve potential discrimination exposures early. They also should carefully document legitimate disciplinary and other non-discriminatory justifications for employment related activities and conduct regular training for management and employees.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information that could be helpful or hurtful in the event of a discriminatioj charge. Businesses need to ensure that all required records and statistics are collected. In addition, businesses also should consider strengthing record creation and retention efforts to help preserve other evidence that could be invaluable to defending charges and change the way that decisions are made and documented to position their organizations to more effectively demonstrate the defensibility of their employment and other business activities against potential nondiscrimination charges.

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.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New EEOC State Discrimination Charge Data Helpful Employer Risk Assessment Tool Discrimination Exposures Grow | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Obama’s Reaffirms Commitment Prosecute Disability Discrimination To Mark Omlstead Anniversary

June 22, 2012

Statements of President Obama made today (June 22, 2012) in celebration of the 13th anniversary of the June 22, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. are a reminder that U.S. businesses face a continuing and growing need to be on guard to defend against potential disability discrimination liabilities. Coupled with the well-documented activism of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

In Olmstead, the Supreme Court ruled in that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a website dedicated to Olmstead enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes.

These Justice Department efforts also are reflected in the companion enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute disability discrimination by the Labor Department Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in employment, the Department of Housing & Urban Development in housing and related areas, the Department of Education in education and related fields and a host of other agencies.

While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabilities Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures

As illustrated by the suit against Texas Wendy’s, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

The ADA generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

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.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mailto cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Obama’s Reaffirms Commitment Prosecute Disability Discrimination To Mark Omlstead Anniversary | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination

April 18, 2012

Killeen Fast-Food Restaurant Refused to Hire Hearing-Impaired Applicant Despite His Qualifications, Federal Agency Charges

Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabililties Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration.

Wendy’s Suit

The EEOC charges in its suit against Texas Wendy’s, Case No. 6:12-CV-00091-WSS in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system utilized by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

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.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published in this electronic Solutions Law publication available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here.

Comments Off on EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DC Court Enjoins Implementation of NLRB Poster Rule

April 17, 2012

The District Court for the District of Columbia today (April 17, 2012) granted employers a temporary reprieve from the obligation to comply with a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) poster mandate scheduled to take effect April 30, 2012.

The NLRB rule that was scheduled to take effect on April 30 would dictate that most private sector employers post a 11-by-17-inch notice informing workers of certain union organizing and other labor-management relations rights under the National Labor Relations Act using language dictated by the NLRB. The notice is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, which has more information on posting requirements and NLRB jurisdiction.

Facing litigation challenging the rule, the NLRB announced on December 23, 2011 that it would delay the deadline to comply with the rule until April 30, 2012. Today’s court ruling enjoins the NLRB from enforcing the new requirement pending additional litigation.

In addition to the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, a South Carolina Court also recently issued rulings questioning the NLRB’s enforcement mechanisms under the impending rule.

In response to today’s D.C. Circuit Court decision, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said of the recent decisions, “We continue to believe that requiring employers to post this notice is well within the Board’s authority, and that it provides a genuine service to employees who may not otherwise know their rights under our law.” Nevertheless, the NLRB announced today thaat it plans to delay further implementation of the poster rule by its regional offices pending the outcome of the impending litigation.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with labor and employment or other human resource, performance management, internal controls or compliance and 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 worker classification and other 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, worker classification, 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

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 DC Court Enjoins Implementation of NLRB Poster Rule | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

March 21 New Deadline To Comment On Proposal To Extend Minimum Wage, Overtime Rules To In Home Care Workers

March 9, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has extended until March 12 the comment period for its proposed rule to provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly 2 million workers who provide in-home care services. See here.

In December, 2011, the WHD published a proposed rule that would expand minimum wage and overtime protections to all home care workers employed by third parties, such as staffing agencies. It also would clarify that individuals performing skilled in-home care work are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay. However, individuals engaged by families for true companionship or fellowship activities, such as visiting with friends or pursuing hobbies, still would be considered “companions” and not be required to meet the act’s labor standards provisions. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [1] (NPRM).

Among other things, the NPRM proposes to revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

To more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion;
To limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services; and
To provide that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

When Congress expanded protections to “domestic service” workers in 1974, it exempted casual babysitters and companions for the aged and inform from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and exempted live-in domestic workers from the overtime pay requirement only. While WHD has left regulations governing this exemption substantially unchanged since first issued in 1975, it now believes the in-home care service industry. workers employed by in-home care staffing agencies are not the workers that Congress envisioned in enacting the companionship exemption (i.e., neighbors performing elder sitting).

As a result of these determines, WHD is moving to modify its existing rules to broaden protections for professionally employed home care workers as well as outreaching to inform employers and workers about the requirements that it perceives employers of these workers must meet.

The proposed tightening of regulations for home health workers follows a general toughening by WHD of its regulation and enforcement of wage and hour laws in the health care industry. See, e.g. Home health care company in Dallas agrees to pay 80 nurses more than $92,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation; US Department of Labor secures nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 health care employees in Pine Bluff, Ark.; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward increasing FLSA compliance in New York’s health care industry; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward residential health care industry in Connecticut and Rhode Island to increase FLSA compliance; Partners HealthCare Systems agrees to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve U.S. Labor Department lawsuit; US Labor Department sues Kentucky home health care provider to obtain more than $512,000 in back wages and damages for 22 employees; and Buffalo, Minn.-based home health care provider agrees to pay more than $150,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation.

Many have expressed concerns about the potential added costs that changes proposed in the NPRM would trigger in providing in home health and companion care for aging and disabled family members. The extension of the comment deadline provides added time for members of the public concerned about these rules to share their input.

Whether or not the proposed rule is adopted, the growing aggressiveness of the WHD and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating minimum wage and overtime rules means health care and others employing home care workers should take well-documented steps to manage their risks. These employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as evaluate and begin preparing to respond to the proposed modifications to these rules. In both cases, employers of home care or other health care workers are encouraged to critically evaluate their classification or workers, both with respect to their status as employees versus contractor or leased employees, as well as their characterization as exempt versus non-exempt for wage and hour law purposes. In addition, given the nature of the scheduled frequently worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with these and other human resources or health care concerns controls 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.

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

Comments Off on March 21 New Deadline To Comment On Proposal To Extend Minimum Wage, Overtime Rules To In Home Care Workers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints & Formal Proceedings

March 9, 2012

The National Labor Relations Board Summary of Activities for Fiscal Year 2011 (Summary) released by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon this week reflects the increased activism and streamlined handling of matters by the NLRB in 2011

Statistics in the Summary reflect an increase in unfair labor practice complaints as well as an increase in the number of complaints that NLRB Regional offices found to merit formal prosecutions. According to the Summary, In FY 2011, the Regional Offices issued 1,342 complaints as compared to 1,243 in FY 2010. In addition to issuing almost 100 more complaints, the percentage of unfair labor practice cases in which a Regional Director determined that formal proceedings were warranted (the merit factor) rose from 35.6% in FY 2010 to 37%. Since 1980, the merit factor has fluctuated between 32% and 40%.

In addition to these results, the General Counsel chose to highlight accomplishments by the NLRB in expediting the handling of investigations and proceedings in several areas. NLRB cut its working inventory of cases by moving matters through faster. The working inventory of cases at the end of FY 2011 was 4,421, compared to 4,063 at the end of FY 2010. Other processing efficiency highlights included:

91.7% of all initial elections were conducted within 56 days of the filing of the petition.
Initial elections in union representation elections were conducted in a median of 38 days from the filing of the petition.
A 93% settlement rate was achieved in the Regional Offices in meritorious unfair labor practice cases.
The Regional Offices won 87% of Board and Administrative Law Judge unfair labor practice and compliance decisions in whole or in part in FY 2011.
A total of $60,514,922 was recovered on behalf of employees as backpay or reimbursement of fees, dues, and fines, with 1,644 employees offered reinstatement.
The Agency exceeded two of its three ambitious overarching goals and came close to achieving the third, closing 84.7% of all representation cases within 100 days (target 85%), 72.5% of all unfair labor practice cases within 120 days (target 71.2%), and 83.2% of all meritorious unfair labor practice cases within 365 days (target 80.2%). The target for each 2011 overarching goal was higher than in FY 2010 and has been increased for FY 2012.
Agency representatives participated in over 600 outreach events during FY 2011.

Other statistics of note include:

The NLRB”s total case intake during FY 2011 declined to 24,990, compared to 26,585 cases in FY 2010, representing a 5.9% decrease in overall intake. Unfair labor practice case intake declined 5.1% compared to 2010..Total representation case intake declined 2,813, a 12.2% decrease from the FY 2010.
Petitions filed in certification and decertification decreased 11.2% from 2,969 in FY 2010 to 2,634 in FY 2011. Petitions filed in unit deauthorization, unit amendment and unit clarification (UD, AC and UC) cases decreased by 23.8% from the previous year’s intake, with the filing of 179 petitions in FY 2011 compared to 235 filed in FY 2010.

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

Comments Off on NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints & Formal Proceedings | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Sullivan University System to Pay $483,000 in Back Wages Overtime Violations Stemming From Worker Misclassifications

March 8, 2012

Sullivan University System, Inc. learned the hard way that U.S employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors, as exempt for wage and hour law purposes or otherwise increasingly risk investigation and enforcement from federal and state agencies targeting perceived misclassification abuses.

Following an investigation by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, Kentucky based Sullivan University System Inc. will pay $483,201 in back wages to 248 employees who the Department found it wrongfully denied overtime pay while working as admissions officers and high school representatives. The investigation found that employees were incorrectly classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the employer failed to keep accurate records of the employees’ hours.

The Sullivan University System, Inc. settlement provides another example of the growing risks that U.S. employers face from misclassifying workers as exempt employees for purposes of wage and hour and overtime laws. As a result of the mischaracterization of workers as contractors that the Labor Department determined to qualify as employees for purposes of wage and hour and overtime laws, the Labor Department found the employer failed to pay required overtime and to maintain required time records in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wage and hour laws are only one of a myriad of areas in which the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service and other federal and state regulators increasingloy are scrutinizing worker classifications to uncover violations of applicable law resulting from the mischaracterization of workers as exempt or as non-employee service providers.

The Obama Administration is targeting employers that misclassify workers for enforcement.

Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continues to conduct worker classification audits while encouraging employers to self correct existing payroll tax misclassifications by participating in a new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (“Settlement Program”) announced in September. However the limited scope of the relief provided makes use of the program challenging for most employers. See New IRS Voluntary IRS Settlement Program Offers New Option For Resolving Payroll Tax Risks Of Misclassification But Employers Also Must Manage Other Legal Risks; Medical Resident Stipend Ruling Shows Health Care, Other Employers Should Review Payroll Practices; Employment Tax Takes Center Stage as IRS Begins National Research Project , Executive Compensation Audits.

While these and other agencies continue to keep the heat up on employers that misclassify workers, Congress also continues to consider legislation that would further clarify and tighten worker classification rules. See e.g., Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; New IRS Worker Classification Settlement Program and Its Risks.

In her November 3, 2011 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. Labor Department Wage & Hour Division (WHD) Deputy Administrator (WHD) Nancy Leppink confirmed that the Labor Department is joining a growing list of federal and state agencies that are making ending employee misclassification an audit and enforcement priority. Ms Leppink testified that “employee misclassification is a serious and, according to all available evidence, growing problem” that the Obama Administration is “committed to working to end.” See Testimony of Nancy J. Leppink, Deputy Wage and Hour Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives (November 3, 2011).

Her testimony also makes clear that interagency coöperation and sharing of information among agencies is an increasingly valuable tool to this effort. Ms. Leppink told the Subcommittee that the Labor Department is a part of a multi-agency Misclassification Initiative that seeks to strengthen and coördinate Federal and State efforts to enforce violations of the law that result from employee misclassification.

According to Ms. Leppink, the WHD’s exchange of information about investigations with other law enforcement agencies is as “particularly important with respect to our efforts to combat the violations of our laws that occur because of employees who are misclassified as independent contractors or other non-employees.” On September 19, 2011 the Labor Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share information about investigations with each other. The MOU helps the IRS investigate if employers the Labor Department has found in violation of federal labor laws have paid the proper employment taxes. Similarly, the WHD also entered into MOUs with several state labor agencies that allow the Labor Department to share information about its investigations and coordinate misclassification enforcement when appropriate.

“These agreements mean that all levels of government are working together to solve this critical problem,” she said.

Employers Urged To Audit & Strengthen Worker Classification Practices

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

Review and management of these issues is particularly timely in light of the opening by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of a new settlement program for resolving payroll tax issues resulting from misclassification. Given broader labor and other risks, however, before taking advantage of a new Internal Revenue Service program offering employers the opportunity to resolve potential payroll tax liabilities arising from the misclassification of workers, employers should consider and develop a risk management their overall worker misclassification liability exposures. See “New IRS Worker Classification Settlement Program and its Risks,” in the January, 2011 issue of the Dallas Bar Journal To read her article, see page 8 of the January, 2012 Dallas Bar Journal here.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with worker classification or other human resources or internal controls 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.

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

Comments Off on Sullivan University System to Pay $483,000 in Back Wages Overtime Violations Stemming From Worker Misclassifications | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New DOL Final Rules Tighten Requirements For Employers To Hire Alien Workers Using H-2B Visas

February 21, 2012

Employers of workers relying on H-2B visas for eligibility to work will need to update their practices to comply with a new Final Rule on the H-2B program issued February 21, 2012 by the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division.

Effective April 23, 2012, the Final Rule amends Labor Department regulations governing the certification of the employment of nonimmigrant workers performing temporary or seasonal non-agricultural labor or services and the enforcement of the obligations applicable to employers under the H-2B program. Among other things, the Final Rule:

Revises the process by which employers obtain a temporary labor certification from the Labor Department for use in petitioning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to employ a nonimmigrant worker in H-2B status;
Establishes new rules providing increased worker protections for both U.S. and foreign workers;
Creates a national electronic job registry for all H-2B job orders to improve U.S. worker access to these temporary jobs;
Contains provisions to enhance recruitment of U.S. workers from across the country;
Increases the amount of time during which U.S. workers must be recruited and hired; and
Requires the rehiring of former employees when available.

U.S. employers need to exercise care to properly manage and maintain appropriate documentation showing compliance with applicable Visa, I-9 eligibility to work, and other applicable Immigration and Customs law requirements impacting their recruitment and employment of foreign and other workers. Violation of these requirements can expose employers to substantial civil and even criminal liability. At the same time, all employers also need to tread carefully to manage the significant employment discrimination liabilities that can arise from charges of improper discrimination against workers in violation of national origin, race and other federal and state nondiscrimination laws. See, e.g. Manufacturer’s Excessive I-9 Documentation Triggers Discrimination Liability.

When reviewing the adequacy of existing practices and administering these practices, employers should keep in mind the advisability of ensuring appropriate compliance and risk management of these responsibilities both with regard to workers performing services directly for their organizations in the capacity of employees, as well as workers providing services as independent contractors, leased employees or pursuant to other contracted services arrangements.

When designing and administering these processes, employers also generally should keep in mind that alien workers hired in violation of I-9 eligibility to work requirements generally still continue to enjoy the protection of the employment discrimination, wage and hour, anti-retaliation and other laws that otherwise would apply to other similarly situated employees. Accordingly, employers should exercise care to properly coördinate their responsibilities to promote their ability to demonstrate proper collection of required eligibility to work documentation, proper classification for worker classification, wage and hour and other laws, and appropriate adherence to nondiscrimination and other employment, tax and other applicable laws and regulations.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with these or other human resources, risk management or compliance or internal controls 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, I-9 and other immigration and customs, 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.

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

Comments Off on New DOL Final Rules Tighten Requirements For Employers To Hire Alien Workers Using H-2B Visas | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | 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

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

Labor Department Final Rule Defines Recreation Vehicle For Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

January 10, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs has issued a final rule implementing the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusion for recreational vessel workers. The rule defines what constitutes a “recreational vessel” when applying the exclusion.

The LHWCA provides workers (or their survivors in the case of death) compensation for injuries related to maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining areas.

Before 2009, the LHWCA excluded workers who repaired or dismantled recreational vessels fewer than 65 feet in length from coverage if they were covered by a state workers’ compensation program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expanded this exclusion by eliminating the 65-foot limitation. Now, workers who repair recreational vessels of any length or dismantle them for repair are excluded from LHWCA coverage if they are covered under a state workers’ compensation law.

The final rule generally uses the U.S. Coast Guard’s standards for defining a recreational vessel. However, it adds two provisions the Labor Department intends to make it easier to apply these standards in the LHWCA context. First, a manufacturer or builder may determine whether a vessel is recreational within the meaning of the regulation based on the vessel’s design rather than on its end use. Second, noncommercial vessels that are recreational by design and owned or chartered by the federal or a state government fall within the recreational vessel definition.

Read the final rule here.

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

Comments Off on Labor Department Final Rule Defines Recreation Vehicle For Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Employment, Longshore, Occupational Injury, workers compensation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Dallas Bar Journal Article Cautions Employers Must Take Holistic Approach To Address Worker Misclassification Risks

December 27, 2011

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer’s cautions that before taking advantage of a new Internal Revenue Service program offering employers the opportunity to resolve potential payroll tax liabilities arising from the misclassification of workers, employers should consider and develop a risk management their overall worker misclassification liability exposures.

Ms. Stamer discusses the need for employers to take a holistic approach to assessing and addressing worker classification risks in her article, “New IRS Worker Classification Settlement Program and its Risks,” in the January, 2011 issue of the Dallas Bar Journal To read her article, see page 8 of the January, 2012 Dallas Bar Journal here.

U.S employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors, as exempt for payroll or other tax, wage and hour, immigration, and a wide range of other legal purposes or otherwise increasingly risk investigation and enforcement from federal and state agencies targeting perceived misclassification abuses. While U.S. employers should review and correct as needed worker misclassifications that could result in violations laws in light of the growing enforcement emphasis and interagency coordination targeting employers that violate federal or state tax, labor and other laws by misclassifying workers, employers should evaluate and address these concerns on a holistic, rather than peice meal basis.The Obama Administration is targeting employers that misclassify workers for enforcement.

Agency officials and members of Congress have sent numerous messages to U.S. employers to clean up their worker classification practices. For instance, Labor Department enforcement actions increasingly show its employer misclassification audit and enforcement emphasis. See, e.g.Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Backpay Settlement; $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;

While these and other agencies continue to keep the heat up on employers that misclassify workers, Congress also continues to hear testimony and consider legislation that would further clarify and tighten worker classification rules. See e.g., Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; New IRS Worker Classification Settlement Program and Its Risks. Agency officials arefueling and responding to Congressional worker classification concerns by highlighting issues in Congressional testimony and other communications. In her November 3, 2011 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and the Workforce, for instance, U.S. Labor Department Wage & Hour Division (WHD) Deputy Administrator (WHD) Nancy Leppink testified that “employee misclassification is a serious and, according to all available evidence, growing problem” that the Obama Administration is “committed to working to end.” See Testimony of Nancy J. Leppink, Deputy Wage and Hour Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives (November 3, 2011).

“These agreements mean that all levels of government are working together to solve this critical problem,” she said.

Employers Urged To Audit & Strengthen Worker Classification Practices

As Federal and state regulators take aim at misclassification abuses, U.S. employers need to review each arrangement where their business receives services that the business treats as not employed by their business, as well as any employees of their business that the business treats as exempt employees keeping in mind that they generally will bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of that characterization for most purposes of law. The coordination and interrelationship of issues that Ms. Leppink testified about in her November 3 Subscommittee testimony shows that employers need to take a holistic approach in evaluating and addressing their worker classification exposures.

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

Comments Off on Stamer Dallas Bar Journal Article Cautions Employers Must Take Holistic Approach To Address Worker Misclassification Risks | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Urged To Strengthen Worker Classification Defenses As Obama Administration Targets Employers Misclassifying Workers

December 26, 2011

U.S employers that misclassify workers as independent contractors, as exempt for wage and hour law purposes or otherwise increasingly risk investigation and enforcement from federal and state agencies targeting perceived misclassification abuses.

U.S. employers should review and correct as needed worker misclassifications that could result in violations of federal wage and hour or other employment, tax or other laws in light of the growing enforcement emphasis and interagency coordination targeting employers that violate federal or state tax, labor and other laws by misclassifying workers. Testimony of a top Labor Department official confirms that the Obama Administration has employers that misclassify workers in its sights and is ready to take swift action to punish their noncompliance.

Aggressive Employer Worker Classification Practices Under Seige

The Obama Administration is targeting employers that misclassify workers for enforcement.

In her November 3, 2011 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. Labor Department Wage & Hour Division (WHD) Deputy Administrator (WHD) Nancy Leppink confirmed that the Labor Department is joining a growing list of federal and state agencies that are making ending employee misclassification an audit and enforcement priority. testified that “employee misclassification is a serious and, according to all available evidence, growing problem” that the Obama Administration is “committed to working to end.” See Testimony of Nancy J. Leppink, Deputy Wage and Hour Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives (November 3, 2011).

“These agreements mean that all levels of government are working together to solve this critical problem,” she said.

Employers Urged To Audit & Strengthen Worker Classification Practices

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

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Independent Contractor, Overtime, payroll tax, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2/27 Deadline For Employers To Comment On DOL Proposed Rule Changes Extending Minimum Wage & Overtime Rules To More Home Caregiver Workers

December 25, 2011

February 27, 2012 will be the deadline for interested employers to comment on changes that the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) proposes to make to its rules on when its minimum wage and overtime protections apply to workers who provide in-home care services for the elderly and infirm. The proposal will revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act to more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion, and to limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services. In addition, the Department proposes that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

If adopted as proposed, the proposed rules will significantly expand the number of home health care and other home care workers covered by minimum wage and overtime requirements. As proposed, the proposed regulation will revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

To more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion;
To limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services; and
To provide that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

Coupled with these and other enforcement efforts against health industry employers, WHD’s announcement of plans to tighten rules for home care givers. In connection with its announcement of the planned regulatory changes, for instance, WHD highlighted the following guidance about the wage and hour rules that employers of home care workers can anticipate being required to meet when employing these workers:

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes an employer to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability.

In light of the proposed regulatory changes and demonstrated willingness of WHD and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating these rules, health care and others employing home care workers should take well-documented steps to manage their risks. These employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as evaluate and begin preparing to respond to the proposed modifications to these rules. In both cases, employers of home care or other health care workers are encouraged to critically evaluate their classification or workers, both with respect to their status as employees versus contractor or leased employees, as well as their characterization as exempt versus non-exempt for wage and hour law purposes. In addition, given the nature of the scheduled frequently worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

This notice of proposed rulemaking will be available for comment beginning December 27, 2011 at www.regulations.gov. The comment period will close on February 27, 2012.

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

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

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping 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 implement, audit, manage and defend 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. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see 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

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register.

Comments Off on 2/27 Deadline For Employers To Comment On DOL Proposed Rule Changes Extending Minimum Wage & Overtime Rules To More Home Caregiver Workers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Overtime, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Changes Certification Election Case Procedures

December 25, 2011

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has adopted a final rule amending its election case procedures. The final rule published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2011primarily focuses on procedures followed by the NLRB in the minority of cases in which parties can’t agree on issues such as whether the employees covered by the election petition are an appropriate voting group. In such cases, the matter goes to a hearing in a regional office and the NLRB Regional Director decides the question and sets the election.

Scheduled to take effect April 30, 2012, the new final rule Final Rule on Election Procedures seeks to reduce litigation. Among other things, the Final Rule:

Amends § 102.64 to expressly construe Section 9(c) of the Act and to state that the statutory purpose of a pre-election hearing is to determine if a question of representation exists;
Amends § 102.66(a) and eliminate § 101.20(c) (along with all of Part 101, Subpart C) to ensure that hearing officers presiding over pre-election hearings have the authority to limit the presentation of evidence to that which supports a party’s contentions and is relevant to the existence of a question concerning representation;
Amends § 102.66(d) to afford hearing officers presiding over pre-election hearings discretion over the filing of post-hearing briefs, including over the subjects to be addressed and the time for filing;
Amends §§ 102.67 and 102.69 to eliminate the parties’ right to file a pre-election request for review of a regional director’s decision and direction of election, and instead to defer all requests for Board review until after the election, when any such request can be consolidated with a request for review of any post-election rulings;
Eliminates the recommendation in § 101.21(d) (as stated, along with all of Part 101, Subpart C) that the regional director should ordinarily not schedule an election sooner than 25 days after the decision and direction of election in order to give the Board an opportunity to rule on a pre-election request for review;
Amends § 102.65 to make explicit and narrow the circumstances under which a request for special permission to appeal to the Board will be granted;
Amends §§ 102.62(b) and 102.69 to create a uniform procedure for resolving election objections and potentially outcome-determinative challenges in stipulated and directed election cases and to provide that Board review of regional directors’ resolution of such disputes is discretionary; and
Eliminates part 101, subpart C of Board regulations and makes other conforming amendments.

According to the NLRB, the changes in the Final Rule will ensure that going forward, the regional hearings will be expressly limited to issues relevant to the question of whether an election should be conducted. The hearing officer will have the authority to limit testimony to relevant issues, and to decide whether or not to accept post-hearing briefs.

Also, all appeals of regional director decisions to the Board will be consolidated into a single post-election request for review. Parties can currently appeal regional director decisions to the Board at multiple stages in the process.

In addition, the rule makes all Board review of Regional Directors’ decisions discretionary, leaving more final decisions in the hands of career civil servants with long experience supervising elections.

Click here to read the Final Rule.

The Final Rule annoucnement was followed by the NLRB’s announcement that it is delaying the deadline for employers to comply with its employee rights notice-posting rule until April 30, 2012. However the extension does little to relieve employers from the wave of added regulatory and enforcement guidance including new social networking guidance issued coincident with the extension announcement.

While the poster requirement is delayed, the NLRB continues to pursue an active regulatory and enforcement agenda. See, e.g., Employers Face New Labor-Management Exposures Under Activist National Labor Relations Board. Employers should continue to strengthen their labor-management policies and practices to mitigate the growing labor exposures that result from this activist agenda. In fact, the NLRB accompanied its extension anouncement by sharing new guidance about its position on labor law restrictions on employer regulation of social networking and other communications.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with labor managmeent relations or other human resources or internal controls 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 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 implement, audit, manage and defend 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. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see 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

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register.

Comments Off on NLRB Changes Certification Election Case Procedures | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: aor law, department of labor, Employment, Health Care, lovertime, NLRA, NLRB, Union, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Delays Deadline For Employee Labor Rights Poster Requirement To April 30

December 25, 2011

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is delaying the deadline for employers to comply with its employee rights notice-posting rule until April 30, 2012. However the extension does little to relieve employers from the wave of added regulatory and enforcement guidance including new social networking guidance issued coincident with the extension announcement.

The NLRB rule will require that most private sector employers will be required to post the 11-by-17-inch notice on the new implementation date of April 30. The notice is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, which has additional information on posting requirements and NLRB jurisdiction.

Facing litigation challenging the rule, the NLRB announced on December 23, 2011 that it would delay the deadline to comply with the rule to comply with he request of the federal court in Washington, DC hearing the llegal challenge. Following the announcement, the new implementation date is April 30, 2012.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with labor managmeent relations or other human resources or internal controls matters, please contact the author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register.

Comments Off on NLRB Delays Deadline For Employee Labor Rights Poster Requirement To April 30 | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Overtime, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Labor Department Retaliation Guidance Reminder Of Retailiation Risks

December 23, 2011

U.S. employers should exercise care to guard against potential retaliation claims brought by current or former employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) and other federal employment laws.

Retaliation claims have emerged as a leading source of liability for U.S. employers. Most U.S. labor and employment laws, as well as many other statutes prohibit companies from retaliating against employees for exercising protected rights under the law’s provisions. Challenges and risks in managing this growing source of liability has been further fueled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 06-1595, that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII extend to employees who take part in investigations even if that employee does not file a complaint of retaliation. See Supreme Court Decision May Open Doors To More Retaliation Claims

In light of these risks, U.S. employers should tighten employee discipline and other practices and documentation to guard against retaliation claims.

In undertaking these risk management efforts, employers should take advantage of the insights given from three new fact sheets addressing retaliation published by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on December 23, 2011:

Fact Sheet #77A, Prohibiting Retaliation Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), provides general information concerning the FLSA’s prohibition of retaliating against any employee who has filed a complaint or cooperated in an investigation and is available on the WHD website at here;
Fact Sheet #77B, Protection for Individuals under the FMLA, provides general information concerning the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (FMLA) prohibition of retaliating against an individual for exercising his or her rights or participating in matters protected under the FMLA and is available on the WHD website at here; and
Fact Sheet #77C, Prohibiting Retaliation Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), provides general information concerning MSPA’s prohibition of discrimination against a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker who has filed a complaint or participated in any proceeding under or related to MSPA and is available on the WHD website at here.

The guidance comes as the WHD is proposing to adopt new rules that would provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly two million workers who provide in-home care services for the elderly and infirm. WHD’s focus on home health workers is an extension of its expanded regulation and enforcement efforts targeting a broad range of health care industry employers. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The proposed tightening of regulations for home health workers follows a general toughening by WHD of its regulation and enforcement of wage and hour laws in the health care and many other industries. See, e.g. Home health care company in Dallas agrees to pay 80 nurses more than $92,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation; US Department of Labor secures nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 health care employees in Pine Bluff, Ark.; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward increasing FLSA compliance in New York’s health care industry; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward residential health care industry in Connecticut and Rhode Island to increase FLSA compliance; Partners HealthCare Systems agrees to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve U.S. Labor Department lawsuit; US Labor Department sues Kentucky home health care provider to obtain more than $512,000 in back wages and damages for 22 employees; and Buffalo, Minn.-based home health care provider agrees to pay more than $150,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation.

Employers should take steps to manage compliance and other exposures under these and other federal laws, including those for engaging in prohibited retaliation. Employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as take steps to decrease exposures to retaliation claims.

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

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

*WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register.

Comments Off on New Labor Department Retaliation Guidance Reminder Of Retailiation Risks | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Overtime, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Proposes Changing Minimum Wage& Overtime Rules For Home Caregivers, Keeps Heat On Health Care Employers

December 15, 2011

The U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) plans to propose new rules that would provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly two million workers who provide in-home care services for the elderly and infirm. WHD’s focus on home health workers is an extension of its expanded regulation and enforcement efforts targeting a broad range of health care industry employers.

On December 15, 2011 the WHD announced that it will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [1] (NPRM) to revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

To more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion;
To limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services; and
To provide that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes an employer to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability.

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

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

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register.

Comments Off on Labor Department Proposes Changing Minimum Wage& Overtime Rules For Home Caregivers, Keeps Heat On Health Care Employers | Corporate Compliance, Employers, Fair Labor Standards Act, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Wage & Hour | Tagged: department of labor, Employment, Health Care, Overtime, Wage & Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Updates Safety Resources To Prevent Construction, Other “Top 10” Exposures

December 5, 2011

Construction Exposures OSHA Exposure For Most Businesses Including Those In Construction

Construction industry as well as other employers need to watch key construction safety risks.

Construction industry employers get high scrutiny of their safety and injury experience and practices because of high injury incidents coming from these risks. However, you don’t have to be in the construction industry to be exposed to construction and building related risks that are common source of workplace injury and OSHA citations.

While continuing to keep the heat up on enforcement, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) recently released new and updated educational brochures and a series of new QuickCards it intends to promote worker safety in these and other areas.

With construction and related activities continuing to be a lead source of injuries, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) is taking steps to promote better safety compliance in relation to construction and other common accident sources as well as continuing to zealously enforce OSHA citations and other remedies against businesses breaching these and other safety responsibilities. As virtually all employers, including but not limited to those in construction or similar industries have workers performing construction related tasks, all employers should check the updated and existing safety requirements involving these actions and take other steps to manage these and other highlighted exposures.

Construction, Other Safety Education & Resources Updated

Focusing on worker safety in the construction, general and maritime industries, OSHA recently released new and updated educational brochures and a series of new QuickCards on worker safety. These materials available here include workers’ rights, employer rights and responsibilities following an OSHA inspection, construction industry digest, small entity compliance guide for respiratory protection standard and laboratory safety guidance. These new resources are part of a broad range of worker health and safety guides, standards and related materials published by OSHA covering a broad range of industries.

The emphasis on these industries is based in part on the high injury incidence in these businesses. OSHA statistics show that of 4,070 worker fatalities in private industry in calendar year 2010, one-fifth (751 or 18.5%) were in construction. The leading causes of worker deaths on construction sites were: falls, electrocution, struck by object, and caught–in/between. These “Fatal Four” were responsible for nearly three out of five (57%) construction worker deaths in 2010:

Falls – 260 out of 751 total deaths in construction in CY 2010 (35%)
Electrocutions – 76 (10%)
Struck by Object – 63 (8%)
Caught-in/between – 32 (4%)

Employers of workers involved in construction, general and maritime industries also frequently are found to have committed violations that fall within the Top 10 most frequently cited OSHA standards violated in FY2010:

Scaffolding, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.451)
Fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
Hazard communication standard, general industry (29 CFR 1910.1200)
Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)
Respiratory protection, general industry (29 CFR 1910.134)
Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
Electrical, wiring methods, components and equipment, general industry (29 CFR 1910.305)
Powered industrial trucks, general industry (29 CFR 1910.178)
Electrical systems design, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.303)
Machines, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.212)

Construction industry and other employers should review safety practices and compliance for compliance with these and all other standards and to address other potential safety risks to minimize OSHA and other occupational injury related liabilities. and ensure their documentation of these efforts meets OSHA requirements and also positions the employer to defend against potential sanctions in the event of an employee injury or OSHA audit.

Because of the heavy use of subcontractors in these industries, employers also should be aware of potential exposures that can result from other businesses and workers on site.

In addition, employers should take care to ensure that all required documentation of safety practices and notifications dictated by OSHA are maintained and properly preserved.

In the event of an accident or other safety hazard event, employers also should engage counsel and other needed experts to timely investigate, provide notification and redress and manage resulting exposures under OSHA, worker’s compensation and other laws.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you would like help reviewing or defending your organization’s occupational health and safety or other employment or risk management concerns or wish to discuss arranging for Ms. Stamer to conduct training or speak for your organization, please contact Ms Stamer here.

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 and past Vic e-Chair of its Worker’s Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on health and other employee benefit and related workforce, insurance and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with employment, health and safety, employee benefits, compensation and other internal controls and workforce matters. She has 24 plus years experience helping employer and other clients develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits and other management goals. Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on OSHA Updates Safety Resources To Prevent Construction, Other “Top 10” Exposures | Employee Benefits, Employers, OSHA, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: Employment, Occupational Injury, OSHA, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Updates Safety Resources To Prevent Construction, Other “Top 10” Exposures

December 5, 2011

OSHA Updated Worker Safety Cards Available As Safety Enforcement Continues

Construction, Other Safety Education & Resources Updated

Focusing on worker safety in the construction, general and maritime industries, the recently released brochure topics available here include workers’ rights, employer rights and responsibilities following an OSHA inspection, construction industry digest, small entity compliance guide for respiratory protection standard and laboratory safety guidance. These new resources are part of a broad range of worker health and safety guides, standards and related materials published by OSHA covering a broad range of industries.

Falls – 260 out of 751 total deaths in construction in CY 2010 (35%)
Electrocutions – 76 (10%)
Struck by Object – 63 (8%)
Caught-in/between – 32 (4%)

Scaffolding, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.451)
Fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
Hazard communication standard, general industry (29 CFR 1910.1200)
Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)
Respiratory protection, general industry (29 CFR 1910.134)
Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
Electrical, wiring methods, components and equipment, general industry (29 CFR 1910.305)
Powered industrial trucks, general industry (29 CFR 1910.178)
Electrical systems design, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.303)
Machines, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.212)

Because of the heavy use of subcontractors in these industries, employers also should be cognizant of potential exposures that can result from other businesses and workers on site.

In addition, employers should take care to ensure that all required documentation of safety practices and notifications dictated by OSHA are maintained and properly preserved.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

About Solutions Law Press

Labor Secretary Comments Highlight Federal Protections & Resources To Support Veteran’s Employment Rights

November 7, 2011

The U.S. Department of Labor is getting behind veterans. During the annual “Salute to Veterans” ceremony, Secretary of Labor Solis announced new initiatives designed to help military personnel receive training, find jobs and transition back into civilian life, including a curriculum redesign of the Transition Assistance Program. She also highlighted the findings of “The Veteran Labor Force in the Recovery,” a new report that outlines the challenges returning military personnel face in finding employment. Following the ceremony, retired Air Force Col. Lisa Firmin, Army Brig. Gen. Barrye Price and Medal of Honor recipient Paul Bucha participated in a panel discussion with Secretary Solis on issues facing today’s veterans.

The announcements are part of a broader stepped up effort by the Labor Department and other federal agencies to enforce federal protections for veterans and their families and other efforts promoting employment rights for veterans. In light of these and other federal and state effots, employers are urged to review their current policies and practices to ensure full compliance in form and operation with applicable federal and state laws safeguarding veterans and their familes.

For Help With These Or Other Matters

If you would like help reviewing or defending your organization’s health or other employee benefit or insurance programs, need legal representation on health plan or other employee benefits, employment or insurance concerns, or wish to discuss arranging for Ms. Stamer to conduct training or speak for your organization, please contact Ms Stamer here.

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 health and other employee benefit and related workforce, insurance and health care matters.

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

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Labor Secretary Comments Highlight Federal Protections & Resources To Support Veteran’s Employment Rights | Employee Benefits, Employers, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: Determination Letters, Employment, plan qualification, Retirement Plans, Tax, USERRA, veterants | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Announces Changes To H-2B Prevailing Wage Calculation Rules

January 20, 2011

The methodology used to calculates the prevailing wages the Labor Department requires employer to pay H-2B workers and United States (U.S.) workers recruited in connection with a temporary labor certification for use in petitioning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to employ a nonimmigrant worker in H-2B status will change effective January 1, 2012. Comments on the Final Regulation published here (Final Regulations) in the January 19, 2011 Federal Register are due March 21, 2011. Employers using or contemplating using H-2B workers should take into account these new rules when budgeting and projecting workforce costs and assessing the cost-effectiveness and compliance requirements associated with these contemplated relationships.

To comply with its H-2B program obligations, an employer must pay H-2B workers hired in connection with an H-2B application a wage that will not adversely affect the wages of U.S. workers similarly employed. The Labor Department’s H-2B procedures have always provided that adverse effect is prevented by requiring H-2B employers to offer and pay at least the prevailing wage to the H-2B workers and those U.S. workers recruited in connection with the job opportunity.

The Final Regulations are issued largely in response to an August 30, 2010 court order that set aside portions of regulations governing the H-2B temporary worker program issued on December 19, 2009 at 73 Fed. Reg. 78020 (“2008 Final Rule”). On August 30, 2010, a Federal Court found that the Labor Department violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued the 2008 Final Regulations. See Comit[eacute] de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas (CATA) v. Solis, Civil No. 2:09-cv- 240-LP, 2010 WL 3431761 (E.D. Pa.). In that decision, the Federal District Court ordered the Labor Department to “promulgate new rules concerning the calculation of the prevailing wage rate in the H-2B program that are in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The Final Regulation is issued in response to this order.

Under the Final Regulation, Labor Regulation § 655.10 generally will provide that for temporary labor certification purposes, the prevailing wage is the highest of the following:

The wage rate set forth in the CBA, if the job opportunity is covered by a CBA that was negotiated at arms’ length between the union and the employer;
The wage rate established under the DBA or SCA for the occupation in the area of intended employment if the job opportunity is in an occupation for which such a wage rate has been determined; or
The arithmetic mean of the wages of workers similarly employed in the occupation in the area of intended employment as determined by the OES. This computation will be based on the arithmetic mean wage of all workers in the occupation.

The NPC now only will consider employer provided wage surveys for purposes of determining the prevailing wage in a very limited number of circumstances where the employer is permitted to and makes a request for a prevailing wage determination in accordance with the Final Regulations.

For assistance with assessing or defending your current worker classification, wage and hour or other health care and human resources policies and controls, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net, 972-419-7188.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need assistance reviewing your prevailing wage determinations under these, government contracts or other laws, or evaluating, managing or defending your organization’s existing other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, compliance or other practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872 .

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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.

Comments Off on DOL Announces Changes To H-2B Prevailing Wage Calculation Rules | E-Verify, Employers, Government Contractors, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Nonresident aliens | Tagged: Employer, Employment, H-2B Visa, I-9, Immigration, International, Prevailing Wage, Visa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

January 20, 2011

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

CALNET FLSA Backpay Settlement

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

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

Overtime & Other Wage & Hour Enforcement Risks Rising

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

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

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

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 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 workforce classification or other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872 .

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

November 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance evaluating or defending existing or proposed practices under GINA or with other workforce, employee benefit, compensation, internal controls or risk management practices, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Ms. Stamer

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

Other Resources & Developments

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

ICE Invites Comments On Information Required For IMAGE Program Employers

August 31, 2010

September 30, 2010 now is the deadline for employers and others wishing to comment on the information that the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to require employers to supply when completing the “Form 73–028, IMAGE Information Request and Membership Application/ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers” (IMAGE Form) required to participate in the IMAGE program originally announced by ICE in the June 11, 2010 Federal Register here. In a notice published in the August 31, 2010 Federal Register, ICE announced that it is extending the period for commenting on its proposed information collection requirements for an additional 30 days after having received no response to its June 11, 2011 request for comments. Read more here.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance reviewing or responding to the request for comments or otherwise designing, defending or administering I-9 or other human resources compliance concerns, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising employers and others about I-9 and other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation and other workforce compliance, risk management and defense matters. She continuously advises employers about these and other related regulatory compliance, workforce management, operational, public policy, enforcement, litigation and risk management and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, and many other organizations. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To contact Ms. Stamer or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here.

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on ICE Invites Comments On Information Required For IMAGE Program Employers | Affirmative Action, E-Verify, Employers, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration | Tagged: Employer, Employment, I-9, ICE, Immigration | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

June 29, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Resources

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

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to receive our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information about this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to here.

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

TSHHRAE Provides Health Industry HR & Other Managers Employment Law Update & Other Timely Management Training At April Barnstorm 2010: Creating Effective Leaders Programs

March 23, 2010

Get Details & Registration Information here!

A “Legal Update on Employment Law” presented by Board Certified Labor & Employment Attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is among 5 hours of “Barnstorm 2010: Creating an Effective Leaders-Tools of the Trade” management training that the Texas Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration and Education (TSHHRAE) will be hosting for health industry human resources and other managers in five Texas cities between April 26 and April 30, 2010.

Interested health industry human resources and other managers can elect to participate in TSHHRAE’s Barnstorm 2010 management training at the following dates and locations:

April 26 – Weslaco, Knapp Medical Center
April 28 – Sweetwater, Rolling Plains Memorial Hospital
April 28 – Brenham, Trinity Medical Center
April 29 – Lubbock, University Medical Center
April 30 – Odessa, Medical Center Hospital

Update on Employment Law Program Highlights

Ms. Stamer’s Legal Update on Employment Law Program will address:

Recent changes in FMLA, Military Leave, wage and hour, ADA & other disability, COBRA, GINA, HIPAA and other selected federal & Texas employment laws and regulations;
Rising government enforcement of EEOC, HIPAA, wage & hour, worker classification, and other laws and regulations;
Recent developments and increases in retaliation claims;
Recent cases related to supervision; and
Other selected developments impacting health industry human resources management.

Other Barnstorm 2010 Program Highlights and Details

In addition to the Legal Update on Employment Law that Ms. Stamer is scheduled to present, the Barnstorm Program also will feature presentations on:

Leadership in 2010
Dealing with Poor Performers; and
Cultivating a Superstar

For registration and other information about the Barnstorm Program, see here.

About Ms. Stamer

Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor & Employment & Health Care Practice Groups, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for more than 22 years of work with health industry and other organizations on labor and employment, staffing and credentialing, employee benefits, performance management and discipline, compliance and internal controls, risk management, and public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update, the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update, and Solutions Law Press Health Care Privacy & Technology Update and a former legal columnist for MD News, Ms. Stamer also is nationally and internationally recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA), Health Care Compliance Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Harris County Medical Society, the Medical Group Management Association, SHRM, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s health care experience here, and employment experience here. Her insights on these and other matters appear in Managed Care Executive, Modern Health Care, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, MDNews, Kentucky Physician, and many other national and local publications.

If you need assistance with health industry human resources or other management, concerns, wish to inquire about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com or 214.270.2402.

Other Resources

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

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to here.

Comments Off on TSHHRAE Provides Health Industry HR & Other Managers Employment Law Update & Other Timely Management Training At April Barnstorm 2010: Creating Effective Leaders Programs | ADA, Affirmative Action, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, FMLA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Military Leave, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, USERRA, VEVRRA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Tagged: ABA, COBRA, Employment, FMLA, GINA, heatlh care, Labor, Retaliation, TSHHRAE | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 22, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here and learn more about other Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

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

Stamer To Present “2010 Health Plan Checkup” At Annual DFW ISCEBS Employee Benefits Fundamentals Workshop

February 22, 2010

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss the latest changes and requirements affecting employer sponsored group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and vendors during her presentation titled “2010 Health Plan Checkup” at the Dallas/Fort Worth ISCEBS Annual Fundamentals Workshop currently scheduled for May 13, 2010 in Dallas.

With Congress and federal regulators turning up the heat on health care, keeping up to date with the latest developments is both critical and increasingly challenging for employers, their employee benefits and human resources staff, and the fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others dealing with health plan design and administration. Coming as U.S. employers continue to struggle to provide health benefits in the face of skyrocketing health benefit costs, tighter health plan medical privacy, nondiscrimination, mental health and other benefit mandates, and a host of other tighter new federal regulations impacting employment-based health plans and their sponsoring businesses, fiduciaries and administrators increasingly are forcing U.S. business leaders to make appropriate health plan cost and compliance management a key management priority. Ms. Stamer will discuss key developments, highlight new developments on the horizon, and provide tips to participants for monitoring and responding to these and other developments. To register or for additional information, contact the Dallas/Fort Worth ISCEBS here.

Nationally recognized for her more than 22 years of work on managed care and other health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, and health care matters, Ms. Stamer assists employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend managed care and other medical benefit programs and practices. She also regularly advises and assists these and other clients to monitor and respond to evolving legislation, regulations, enforcement activities by federal and state regulators, evolving product and market changes, and private litigation and other disputes. Past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the Current Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters. Some other recent updates on these topics recently published by Ms. Stamer include :

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

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

Comments Off on Stamer To Present “2010 Health Plan Checkup” At Annual DFW ISCEBS Employee Benefits Fundamentals Workshop | ARRA, CHIP, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Stimulus Bill, Tax, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: COBRA, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Military Leave, Premium Subsidy, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Final H-2A Certification Procedures Tighten Requirements For Employment Of Temporary Agricultural Employment Of Workers

February 11, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The Labor Department is tightening requirements for the employment of temporary agricultural workers under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program. Final Labor Department Regulations governing the labor certification process and enforcement mechanisms for the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program will be published in tomorrow’s federal register. The rule will be effective March 15, 2010.

Among other things, the final rule includes stronger mechanisms for enforcement of the worker protection provisions required by the H-2A program by the Labor Department. It also contains provisions designed to ensure U.S. workers in the same occupation working for the same employer, regardless of date of hire, receive no less than the same wage as foreign workers. It creates a national electronic job registry where job orders will be posted through 50 percent of the contract period. It also prohibits cost-shifting from the employer to the worker for recruitment fees, visa fees, border crossing fees and other U.S. government mandated fees.

The H-2A nonimmigrant visa classification applies to foreign workers coming to or already in the U.S. to perform agricultural work of a temporary or seasonal nature. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security may not approve an H-2A visa petition unless the Department of Labor, through its Employment and Training Administration, certifies that there are not sufficient U.S. workers qualified and available to perform the labor involved in the petition and that the employment of the foreign worker will not have an adverse effect on the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

During fiscal year 2009, employers filed 8,150 labor certification applications requesting 103,955 H-2A workers for temporary agricultural work. The Department of Labor certified 94 percent of the applications submitted for a total of 86,014 workers.

To view a fact sheet and more information about the benefits of the new H2A Rule, see here.

For Assistance

If you would like to request a copy of the regulation or have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to I-9 or other employment related immigration, employment, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, and a Council Member on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years experience advising and assisting employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries, and others about these and other workforce management and compliance matters. Her work includes extensive experience advising and defending employers and others in relation to I-9, employment discrimination and other workforce hiring and management concerns domestically and internationally. She also advises, assists, trains, audits and defends employers and others regarding the federal and state Sentencing Guideline and other compliance, equal employment opportunity, privacy, leave, compensation, workplace safety, wage and hour, workforce reengineering, and other labor and employment and defends related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the ICE, IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, writes and conducts training extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on Labor Department Final H-2A Certification Procedures Tighten Requirements For Employment Of Temporary Agricultural Employment Of Workers | Corporate Compliance, Human Resources, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls | Tagged: Employer, Employment, H-2A, I-9, Immigration, International, Visas | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Inapplicability of HIPAA Privacy To Disability Insurer Not License To Impose Unreasonable Claims Requirements

February 8, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

While finding the Privacy Standards imposed by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) inapplicable to disability insurers, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeals nevertheless ruled that the insurer was not entitled to dismissal of the lawsuit challenging the denial of disability benefits brought by a state employee for failure to meet proof of loss requirements based on his failure to sign insurer required medical authorization. Disability insurers and plan fiduciaries should heed the decision as a reminder that exemption from HIPAA does not amount to a license to impose unreasonable proof of loss or requirements inconsistent with a reasonable reading of the terms of the applicable plan or policy, or other applicable regulations.

Harris v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 415262, 2009-0034 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/5/10), involved a lawsuit challenging the continuing refusal of Metropolitan Life Insurance to and its designates to approve the disability benefit claim of Louisiana Supreme Court employee Jack Harris. Metropolitan repeatedly asked insisted that Mr. Harris submit to a physical examination and sign various medical and other authorizations including an “Attending Physician’s Statement” and an “Employee Authorization,” and sign certain other documents. While Mr. Harris sent the “Attending Physician’s Statement” to his treating physician, he declined to sign the Employee Authorization and certain other subsequently requested consents on the grounds of HIPAA. While he provided to a HIPAA-compliant authorizations to his medical providers to release all medical records, medical opinions, and medical reports relating to Mr. Harris’ past and current treatment for purposes of the claim, he declined and instead filed suit contending that the information and releases already provided met the proof of loss requirements of the policy.

Upon motion of Metropolitan, the trial court found that Mr. Harris’ failure to sign the authorizations and submit to the medical examination required by Metropolitan rendered his claim “premature.” Upon appeal, however, the Court of Appeals overruled this determination. While the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the special authorization rules imposed by HIPAA did not apply to a disability insurer such as Metropolitan, it also ruled that its right to require a claimant to sign authorizations, submit to medical examinations or meet other proof of loss conditions must be reasonable in light of the terms of the policy. Accordingly, although the Court of Appeals agreed that the proof of loss and other provisions of the disability policy authorized Metropolitan to require a disability claimant to undergo an independent medical examination “as often as reasonably required,” the Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Harris’ submission to the independent medical examination was not a condition precedent to the initiation of litigation by an insured and that the “medical authorization” demanded by Metropolitan was far broader than what the policy allowed as reasonably required for the independent medical examination. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals overruled the trial court’s dismissal of the disability claim and remanded the action to the trial court for hearing.

While affirming that the HIPAA Privacy Standards don’t directly apply to disability insurers, the Harris decision also demonstrates that disability insurers should not over-estimate the effect of this exemption. While HIPAA may not apply, disability insurers generally remain bound by the reasonable construction of their policy terms, taking into account otherwise applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, disability and other HIPAA-exempt insurers and plans should not confuse the inapplicability of the HIPAA authorization requirements for carte blanche to impose unreasonable authorization or other proof of loss requirements inconsistent with their policy terms.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to this invitation or other employee benefit, employment, compensation, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, and a Council Member on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years experience advising and assisting employers, employee benefit plan and their fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, and others about policy and plan, process, and product design, administration, documentation, risk management and defense under ERISA, COBRA, HIPAA, labor and employment, tax, state banking and insurance, and other laws. Her work includes extensive experience advising and defending employee benefit plan fiduciaries and insurers about the investigation of disability, health and other claims and appeals. She also advises, assists, trains, audits and defends employers and others regarding the federal and state Sentencing Guideline and other compliance, equal employment opportunity, privacy, leave, compensation, workplace safety, wage and hour, workforce reengineering, and other labor and employment and defends related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, writes and conducts training extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on Inapplicability of HIPAA Privacy To Disability Insurer Not License To Impose Unreasonable Claims Requirements | Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Retirement Plans | Tagged: Authorizations, Claims Procedures, Disability Insurance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Privacy Standards | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Mental Health Parity Regulations Require Health Plan Review & Updates

January 31, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer and union-sponsored group health plans and insurers generally must update their group health plans to comply with expanded federal “mental health parity” regulations (MHP Regulations) published on Friday, January 29, 2010 will require changes to most covered group health plans to comply with the new rules and to make adjustments to broader benefit provisions as appropriate to mitigate potential cost implications no later than the first plan year beginning after June 30, 2010.

Jointly published by the Treasury, Health & Human Services and Labor Departments and available for review here , the MHP Regulations interpret and implement federal rules prohibiting group health plans and their insurers from imposing certain special limits on benefits provided for mental health and substance abuse treatments not applicable to general medical or surgical benefits.

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008, Public Law 110-343 (MHPAEA) expands the scope of prohibited restrictions on mental health benefits beginning after June 30, 2010. Under the MHPAEA amendments, any covered group health plan that includes mental health and substance use disorder benefits along with standard medical and surgical benefits generally cannot apply more limited benefit limits, out-of-pocket cost limitations, prior authorization and utilization review or other benefit restrictions than apply to medical or surgical benefits. In addition, group health plan utilization review, medical necessity and appropriateness and other rules and procedures used to decide mental health and substance abuse benefits generally must be based on the same level of scientific evidence used by the group health plan or insurer to determine medical and surgical benefits.

Before the MHPAEA amendments took effect, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) generally only prohibited group health plans from applying more restrictive aggregate lifetime and annual dollar limits on mental health benefits than applied to general medical or surgical benefits and did not extend these restrictions to substance use disorder benefits.

The MHP Regulations generally apply to group health plans of employers with 50 or more workers that offer mental health or substance use disorder benefits for plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2010. Until then, covered group health plans and their insurers generally must continue to comply with the more limited mental health parity requirements imposed under the MHPA, as well as other federal group health plan mandates.

Federal law increasingly is curtailing the significant latitude that employers and unions once enjoyed in deciding the benefits, eligibility and other terms and conditions of their group health plans, including many significant changes that took effect or will take effect during 2009 and 2010. You can learn more about some of these developments by reviewing the 2009 Health Plan Update presentation posted here. In light of the liabilities and costs arising under these and other rules, plan sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries and executives with responsibility over these plans, their establishment, funding or administration should take prompt and prudent steps to verify that their plan documents, communications, agreements and practices are updated to minimize risks and avoid unanticipated expense.

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

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates that may be of interest include:

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on New Mental Health Parity Regulations Require Health Plan Review & Updates | Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Mental Health | Tagged: Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Risk Management, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

January 20, 2010

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

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

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

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

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

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update