Labor |

Education Association Union Sued For Race Discrimination

May 4, 2023

Discrimination lawsuits against employers are common. Suits against unions are rare. However that’s what’s happening to Sunnybrook Education Association, IEA-NEA, (“Sunnybrook Union”), a labor union representing teachers and educational support personnel in the Sunnybrook School District.

In the lawsuit EEOC v. Sunnybrook Education Association, IEA-NEA, 1:23-cv-02804) filed in the U.S. District Court of Illinois, Northern District, Eastern Division today, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charges Sunnybrook Union with violating federal civil rights law by blocking the promotion of an African American custodian to the role of head custodian because of his race,

The EEOC said that Sunnybrook Union grieved the promotion of a Black employee of Sunnybrook School District 171 rather than ignoring the promotion or negotiating a memorandum of understanding, as it had done in other cases where non-Black employees received promotions or salaries that did not conform to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).

The lawsuit charges this conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits labor organizations from discriminating against members on the basis of race and causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual because of their race, sex, religion, or other protected class. The EEOC is seeking full relief, including back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and a commitment from the union to permit the employee to receive his promotion and raise.

Comments of EEOC officials about the lawsuit show the EEOC is serious about prosecution of workplace race discrimination whether committed by labor or management. “The Sunnybrook Union should be opening doors for the employees it represents, not standing in the way of their advancement,” said Gregory Gochanour, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “Here, we have an employee doing the job of a head custodian but prevented from receiving the benefits of that job because of his race.”

More Information

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

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

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day to day operations, through times of change and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.

Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other and health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

Comments Off on Education Association Union Sued For Race Discrimination | Corporate Compliance | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, department of labor, Employee, Employer, Employment, employment law, Human Resources, Labor, Labor Department, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Should Review Workplace Violence Plans and Training In Response To Recent Workplace Violence Tragedies

November 29, 2022

Two mass shootings of workers at Walmarts in Virginia in less than a month and a series of other recent workplace shootings around the country should prompt other employers to evaluate the adequacy of their own workplace violence safeguards under and other laws.

As demonstrated by the already filed state lawsuit filed by an employee of the Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart where a supervisor fatally shot six people in October, 2022, see here, businesses experiencing workplace violence events typically face OSHA and other investigations, lawsuits and critical media and public scrutiny. A well-documented and administered workplace violence safety plan can help mitigate legal and other risks.

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“OSHA”) generally considers protecting workers against workplace violence part of an employer’s general duty to make the workplace safe under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“(OSH Act”).

OSHA defines “workplace violence” as including any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors.

Many business leaders underestimate their organization’s workplace violence risk. Workplace violence is a much more common problem than most American business leaders realize. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), reported workplace injury data reflects there were 392 workplace homicides in 2020, the most recent year for which BLS has published data. There were also 37,060 nonfatal injuries in the workplace resulting from an intentional injury by another person. The five occupational groups with the most workplace homicides in 2020 were sales and related, transportation and material moving, management, construction and extraction, and production. Homicides in sales and related occupations accounted for 23.5 percent of all workplace homicides in 2020. See here.

Research has identified factors that may increase the risk of violence for some workers at certain worksites, such as exchanging money with the public, working with volatile, unstable people, working alone or in isolated areas, providing services and care, working where alcohol is served, time of day and location of work, Among those with higher-risk are workers who exchange money with the public, delivery drivers, healthcare professionals, public service workers, customer service agents, law enforcement personnel, and those who work alone or in small groups.

In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions.

OSHA believes that a well-written and implemented workplace violence prevention program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and federal workplaces. Therefore, OSHA expects employers to assess their worksites to identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring and adopt and implement an appropriate plan.

There are currently no specific OSHA standards for workplace violence. Rather the guidance contemplates each business will tailor an appropriate plan to fit its operations. OSHA provides various resources to aid employers ti DD slop their organization’s plan. The employer is responsible for tailoring an appropriate policy; the guidance strongly suggests including a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence covering all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.

OSHA has developed Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence, which provides guidance and procedures to be followed when conducting inspections and issuing citations related to the occupational exposure to workplace violence. These procedures also provide insight for employers to tailor their plans and practices. Including policies for emergency response, investigation and remediation also is advisable.

The plan can be a separate workplace violence prevention program or can be incorporated into a safety and health program, employee handbook, or manual of standard operating procedures. Employers are responsible for ensuring all workers know the policy and understand that all claims of workplace violence will be investigated and remedied promptly. In addition, OSHA encourages employers to develop additional methods as necessary to protect employees in high risk industries.

In developing and administering their workplace violence policies, employers should seek both to prevent workplace violence and build a record that can help the employer defend against or mitigate legal and other business risks in the event of an incident. Employers also should reevaluate and update their policies and practices in response to events within their own or other workplaces as necessary. Working with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege may help strengthen the risk assessment and policy design, while insulating sensitive discussions and analysis with the attorney-client communication or work product privileges.

More Information

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

About the Author

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of advising, representing and defending domestic and international public, closely held and government organizations on workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and governance, and other risk management, compliance and government relations concerns as well as her coaching, scholarship, training and legislative and public affairs advocacy on these and related areas.

Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 35 year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement and other strategic and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, expat and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence workforce, health care, pension, social security, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also shares her leadership through her extensive involvement in many professional, community and civic organizations. Currently, she serves as Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR and a representative for its Annual Agency Meeting with the EEOC, Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA Tort & Insurance Section (TIPS) Medicine and Law Committee, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Committee Welfare Plan Chair, and in various other projects and capacities. She also previously has served as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, the Society for Human Resources Management Region IV Board Chair and National Consultant’s Board Member; am Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for HR.com, Insurance ThoughtLeaders, BNA CD-Rolm, and Employee Benefits News; the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence Board President, Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, on the North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, as a Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas and many others.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. These include hundreds of highly regarded articles and workshops on health and other benefits, workforce, health care and insurance concerns.

For more information about these requirements, Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on Employers Should Review Workplace Violence Plans and Training In Response To Recent Workplace Violence Tragedies | Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, Disaster, Drug & Alcohol, Emergency, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, HR, Human Resources, OSHA, Safety, Whistleblower, workplace violence | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor, Management, OSHA, Safety, workplace violence | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Give NLRB Your Input On Union Representation Election Regulations

December 13, 2017

The National Labor Relations Board is inviting employers to another interested person’s to provide input to the NLRB about it’s union representation election rules By responding by February 12, 2018 to a Request for Information the NLRB will publish in the Federal Register today (12:13/17).

The Request for Information in will ask for public input regarding three questions about the Board’s 2014 Election Rule, which modified the Board’s representation-election procedures published at at 29 CFR parts 101 and 102:

1. Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained without change?

2. Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained with modifications? If so, what should be modified?

3. Should the 2014 Election Rule be rescinded? If so, should the Board revert to the Representation Election Regulations that were in effect prior to the 2014 Election Rule’s adoption, or should the Board make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations? If the Board should make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations, what should be changed?

The Request for Information was approved by Board Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra and Board Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel. Board Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran dissented.

The election rules published during the Obama administration highly controversial to most employers. The Obama Administration’s publication of the prounion rules was part of a broader series of legislative and regulatory actions by that administration that sought to expand union organizing and other powers. While courts overruled many of these regulatory efforts, the fast track election rules adopted during the Obama Administration have not been struck down and therefore remain in force. Many employers view these rules as giving union organizers unfair advantage in union organizing elections.

Tomorrow’s invitation for public input on the Obama Administration election rule comes after President Trump filled vacancies on the NLRB after he took office. Many NLRB watchers expect these Trump appointees will cause the NLRB to modify or reverse the Obama Administration election and other rules .

The official Request for Information as approved by the Board, including the dissenting views, may be found here.

Responses to these questions will be accepted from Wednesday, December 13, 2017 to Monday, February 12, 2018 (within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register). Employers and others interested in seeking changes to the election rule should submit comments with this period.

About The Author

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

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

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Give NLRB Your Input On Union Representation Election Regulations | board of directors, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, NLRA, Risk Management, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union certification, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Employer, Labor, Union, union election | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

November 1, 2017

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced today the appointment of Jennifer A. Abruzzo to serve as NLRB’s Acting General Counsel.

Although Ms. Abruzzo original began her legal career as a civil litigation attorney in the medical malpractice division of a South Florida firm, she has spent almost twenty-three years working for the NLRB in various capacities, including as Field Attorney, Supervisory Field Attorney and Deputy Regional Attorney in the Miami, Florida office, as well as Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the Division of Operations-Management in Washington, DC, where she oversaw Regional operations in the Northeast and Midwest.

Prior to becoming Deputy General Counsel, Ms. Abruzzo served as the Executive Assistant to Acting General Counsel Lafe E. Solomon, and detailed in that role for General Counsel Ronald E. Meisburg. In 2011 her involvement at the NLRB drew public attention when an e-mail sent to her by then NLRB Deputy Assistant General Counsel Joseph Baniszewski forwarding a political cartoon mocking the state of South Carolina with regard to Boeing Corporation’s decision to locate its manufacturing facility to South Carolina was made public.

During her career with NLRB, she has participated in the litigation of numerous high profile cases.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

1 Comment | board of directors, compliance, directors, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, ERISA, health plan, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Loyalty, Management, Managment, NLRA, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Trump Health Care Executive Order

October 12, 2017

President Trump today (October 12, 2017) issued the following that he promised to be the first in a series of executive orders and other administrative actions that his administration will roll out to provide Obamacare relief for consumers, employers and others by promoting healthcare choice and competition given the continued difficulty by the Republican-led Congress to pass legislation repealing or replacing the health care law.

What actually will result remains to be seen. Like the January 20, 2017 Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal that President Trump signed as his first executive order, the new Executive Order doesn’t actually change anything; it merely directs the agencies to review and propose for implementation changes to regulations and other guidance allowed by law.

On the heels of his announcement of the Executive Order, President Trump moved forward on his promise to take other action on Obamacare by announcing that the Administration will not continue funding for individual subsidies that currently are continued under an Obama Administration action in the absence of Congressional action funding those subsidies.

Concerned parties should monitor and inform themselves about proposed changes in the Executive Order and other actions as they are proposed and develop, and provide timely comments and other input to help influence the shape and content of any changes proposed or adopted in response to the Executive Order. Solutions Law Press, Inc. will be monitoring developments. Stay tuned for updates.

Language of Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

(a) It shall be the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), however, has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using http://www.healthcare.gov in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013. The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017.

(b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

(i) Large employers often are able to obtain better terms on health insurance for their employees than small employers because of their larger pools of insurable individuals across which they can spread risk and administrative costs. Expanding access to AHPs can help small businesses overcome this competitive disadvantage by allowing them to group together to self-insure or purchase large group health insurance. Expanding access to AHPs will also allow more small businesses to avoid many of the PPACA’s costly requirements. Expanding access to AHPs would provide more affordable health insurance options to many Americans, including hourly wage earners, farmers, and the employees of small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel economic growth.

(ii) STLDI is exempt from the onerous and expensive insurance mandates and regulations included in title I of the PPACA. This can make it an appealing and affordable alternative to government-run exchanges for many people without coverage available to them through their workplaces. The previous administration took steps to restrict access to this market by reducing the allowable coverage period from less than 12 months to less than 3 months and by preventing any extensions selected by the policyholder beyond 3 months of total coverage.

(iii) HRAs are tax-advantaged, account-based arrangements that employers can establish for employees to give employees more flexibility and choices regarding their healthcare. Expanding the flexibility and use of HRAs would provide many Americans, including employees who work at small businesses, with more options for financing their healthcare.

(c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competition in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should:

(i) expand the availability of and access to alternatives to expensive, mandate-laden PPACA insurance, including AHPs, STLDI, and HRAs;

(ii) re-inject competition into healthcare markets by lowering barriers to entry, limiting excessive consolidation, and preventing abuses of market power; and

(iii) improve access to and the quality of information that Americans need to make informed healthcare decisions, including data about healthcare prices and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, providers, or payers.

Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expanding the conditions that satisfy the commonality‑of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an “employer” under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry.

Sec. 3. Expanded Availability of Short-Term, Limited‑Duration Insurance.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand the availability of STLDI. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretaries should consider allowing such insurance to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer.

Sec. 4. Expanded Availability and Permitted Use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements.

Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, to increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.

Sec. 5. Public Comment.

The Secretaries shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under sections 2 through 4 of this order.

Within 180 days of the date of this order, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor and the Federal Trade Commission, shall provide a report to the President that:

(a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.

Sec. 7. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 12, 2017

Implications & Actions

The impact of this and other Executive Orders and other Presidential actions depend upon what actions, if any, the agencies determine they are allowed by law to take and how those changes are implemented. Concerned persons and organizations should begin preparing input to the agencies and monitoring and commenting on proposals and other guidance to help shape the outcome.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. is preparing initial analysis of this Executive Order and will be closely monitoring and updating this analysis. Follow up to learn more and stay abreast of new developments.

About The Author

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Author of numerous works on privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer‘s experience includes involvement in cyber security and other data privacy and security matters for more than 20 years.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Read Trump Health Care Executive Order | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Association Health Plan, Brokers, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, FLSA, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, MEWA, Payroll Tax, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Worker Classification, Workforce, zane benefits | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, ERISA, executive, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor, Labor Department, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Overtime, Tax, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

September 13, 2017

Employers beware of potential National Labor Relations Act unfair labor practices risks that may arise from their adoption or enforcement of overly broad or restrictive workplace recording, acceptable use, workplace conduct, commitment-to-integrity or other policies that might be construed to prohibit or deter employees from exercising protected organization or other collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in light of the Fifth Circuit’s July 25, 2017 T-Mobile United States, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. decision.

In T-Mobile v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit upheld and ordered the enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that telecommunications industry employers T-Mobile and MetroPCS (T-Mobile) engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 of the NLRA by maintaining a policy that prohibited all photography and audio or video recording in its workplace without the employer’s prior permission (“Recording Policy”).

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling arose from an appeal filed by T-Mobile with the Fifth Circuit, challenging a NLRB ruling that the Recording Policy, a workplace conduct policy, a commitment-to-integrity policy and an Acceptable Use Policy included in the T-Mobile employee handbook violated the NLRA because “employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity and therefore constituted unfair labor practices prohibited under Section 8 of the NLRA. (Note: T-Mobile did not appeal the NLRB’s findings that 7 other policies also violated the NLRA).

While the Fifth Circuit’s decision only upheld the unfair labor practice determination based on the Recording policy, the decision makes clear that its findings concerning each of the four employment policies subject to the appeal as well as other employment policies could come out differently in other cases based on the contextual evidence reflected in the factual record concerning the particular employment policy and the context in which it is implemented and enforced. Employers maintaining or administering similar workplace rules will want to scrutinize carefully their own policies to assess their potential for exposing the employer to unfair labor practice charges and take appropriate action to minimize these risks.

Policies Chilling Organizational Rights Protected By NLRA § 7 Create Unfair Labor Practice Exposures

Section 7 of the NLRA protects workers’ right “to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. NLRA § 8(a)(1) makes it an “unfair labor practice” for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights” protected by NLRA § 7.

According to existing Fifth Circuit precedent, a workplace rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if the rule either:

“Explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7″ or
Employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity even if the rule does not explicitly prohibit or has not been enforced to prohibit or restrict Section 7 protected activity.

A careful analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s decision makes clear that its decision about each of the four challenged policies covered by T-Mobile’s appeal turned upon the Court’s careful analysis of the surrounding context under which the applicable policy was implemented and administered reflected in the factual record. While the Fifth Circuit overruled as erroneous the NLRB’s findings that three other challenged policies violated the NLRA under this analysis, it agreed with and ordered enforced the NLRB’s ruling that T-Mobile’s Recording Policy violated the NLRA by impermissibly chilling worker’s exercise of their Section 7 rights. Construing the Acceptable Use Policy as prohibiting all recording in the workplace without the employer’s consent, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the policy would “discourage” a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity” because a reasonable employee would construe the Policy as prohibiting employee unionizing or other concerted activity protected by the NLRA.

Context Protected Workplace Conduct, Commitment-To-Integrity, No Arguing or Fighting & Acceptable Use Policy

Based upon its review of the contextual facts shown in the record, the Fifth Circuit overruled the NLRB’s unfair labor practice orders with respect to T-Mobile’s workplace conduct, commitment-to- integrity, no argument or fighting and Acceptable Use policies. Employers should note, however, that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling does not give blanket enforcement to the defensibility of these policies in all circumstances. Rather, noting that “context matters” when determining whether a work rule violates the NLRA, the court found the policies read in the context of the workplace established common sense civility guidelines that a reasonable employee would not read as chilling or discouraging organization activities protected under Section 7. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit declined to enforce the NLRB’s unfair labor practice orders against T-Mobile with respect to those policies in this instance. Employers considering the implications on this decision on their own policies should keep in mind, however, that the Fifth Circuit based its decision on the context reflected by the facts in the record. Accordingly, there remains a risk that these or other policies could be found to violate the NLRB if adopted or administered under circumstances that could chill reasonable workers from exercising their Section 7 organizational rights.

Context Invalidated Recording Policy

The critical significance of the factual context in determining the defensibility of each of these policies under Sections 7 and 8(a) of the NLRA is driven home by the Fifth Circuit’s explanation in the opinion of its decision to enforce the NLRB’s order with respect to the following Recording Policy as well as its explanation of its distinguishability from the Acceptable Use Policy that the Fifth Court found permitted.:

To prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information employees are prohibited from recording people or confidential information using cameras, camera phones/devices, or recording devices (audio or video) in the workplace. Apart from customer calls that are recorded for quality purposes, employees may not tape or otherwise make sound recordings of work-related or workplace discussions. Exceptions may be granted when participating in an authorized [T-Mobile] activity or with permission from an employee’s Manager, HR Business Partner, or the Legal Department. If an exception is granted, employees may not take a picture, audiotape, or videotape others in the workplace without the prior notification of all participants.

In determining this Recording Policy impermissibly deterred employees from exercising their Section 7 rights in violation of the NLRA, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion makes clear that “the broad reach of the recording ban” strongly influenced this determination, stating:

The ban, by its plain language, encompasses any and all photography or recording on corporate premises at any time without permission from a supervisor. This ban is, by its own terms alone, stated so broadly that a reasonable employee, generally aware of employee rights, would interpret it to discourage protected concerted activity, such as even an off-duty employee photographing a wage schedule posted on a corporate bulletin board. …

Unlike the “workplace conduct” policy and the “commitment-to-integrity” policy, the recording policy forbids certain forms of clearly protected activity. We have earlier held that held those two policies would not be interpreted by a reasonable T-Mobile employee as forbidding protected activity. By contrast, a reasonable T-Mobile employee, aware of his legal rights, would read the language of the recording policy as plainly forbidding a means of engaging in protected activity.

In the face of this possibility, the Court similarly considered the factual record before rejecting T-Mobile’s argument that the Policy was defensible to promote its legitimate business interests “[t]o prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information” on the grounds that “merely reciting such justifications does not alter the fact that the operative language of the rule on its face prohibits protected Section 7 activity, including Section 7 activity wholly unrelated to those stated interests.”

In reaching this determination, the Fifth Circuit distinguished these findings from its findings with regard to the Acceptable Use policy. In explaining its finding the Acceptable Use Policy valid, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion explains that the NLRB’s decision concerning the Acceptable Use Policy disregarded the context in which the acceptable use policy is to be read and understood, stating:

The “Scope” section of the acceptable use policy explicitly states that the policy “applies to all non-public T-Mobile information.” Thus the policy only prohibits employees from sharing non-public information.

Where a company policy prohibits the disclosure of non-public information, courts presume that a reasonable employee would not construe the policy to prohibit the disclosure of information that may be properly used in protected activity, such as wage and benefit information, so long as the policy does not explicitly state that it encompasses such information. … Here… the policy does not define “non-public T-Mobile information” in a way that would lead a reasonable worker to believe that it includes protected wage and benefit information. Instead, the policy only applies to the sort of proprietary business information that an employer may properly restrict its employees from sharing outside of the company. …

Thus the NLRB’s finding that a reasonable worker would construe the acceptable use policy to discourage protected activity is unreasonable, and we deny enforcement as to that part of its order.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit upheld enforcement of the NLRB’s order striking down the Recording Policy but denied enforcement and overruled the NLRB’s unfair labor practice finding with regard to the other three policies.

Contextual Basis of Decision Requires Employer Tread Carefully, Manage Risks

While the Fifth Circuit only enforced the NLRB’s unfair labor practice finding with respect to T-Mobile’s Recording Policy in T-Mobile, the opinion makes clear that similar or identical policies could be treated differently depending upon whether the contextual evidence reflects that the policy could be reasonably construed by employees as prohibiting or restricting conduct protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. Employers maintaining or administering similar workplace rules will want to scrutinize carefully their own policies to assess their potential for exposing the employer to unfair labor practice charges and take appropriate action to minimize these risks.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies | board of directors, compliance, directors, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, ERISA, health plan, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Loyalty, Management, Managment, NLRA, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Workforce | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

August 8, 2017

U.S. employers recruiting or employing workers with high demand skills or experience in the U.S. labor market should reevaluate existing employee retention and recruiting packages and policies and intellectual property safeguards to deal with the increasingly competitive job market reflected in June, 2017 employment data and trends reflected in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released today (August 8, 2017). Employers relying on workers within these industries should re-evaluate and update as necessary their existing budgeting, hiring, recruitment and retention, trade secret, noncompetition and other policies and practices to proactively position their companies to effectively compete to ensure they retain and recruit the necessary workers to operate effectively.

The BLS statistics offer employers and others key insights into various workforce and employment trend, not the least of which are signs of growing competition among employers for high demand workers arising from the continued growth in job openings reported in the BLS statistics. See, e.g. Table A. Job openings, hires, and total separations by industry, seasonally adjusted and Job Openings and Labor Turnover Technical Note; Table 1. Job openings levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted; Table 2. Hires levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted; Table 3. Total separations levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted.

BLS statistics showing new hires lagging behind the continued growth in job openings signal that employers in impacted industries and regions should prepare to face growing competition for qualified workers.

According to BLS, the U.S. job openings level increased by 461,000 to 6.2 million openings as of the last day of June. Among these 461,000 new openings, the overwhelming majority – 417,000 openings were for private sector positions, with the largest increases occurring in professional and business services (+179,000), health care and social assistance (+125,000) and construction (+62,000) while job openings decreased for other services by 62,000.

Meanwhile, BLS statistics showing that hires and total separations did not keep up with the growth in job openings sends a strong message that employers employing workers from increasingly competitive talent pools should focus as much on their ability to retain existing workers as to recruit new workers to fill new positions or replace workers. Aside from the gap between job openings and hires generally, quit rate statistics reported by BLS merit special consideration. As quits are voluntary separations initiated by the employee, the quit rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave an existing position for a new opportunity. BLS statistics showing continued stability in the quit rate and number of quits during June suggests that as of the end of June, reflected that many employed workers in high growth industries had not yet decided to make the leap to a new position. See Table 4. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted. Table 10. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, not seasonally adjusted.

Amid growing competition for workers, however, it is foreseeable that employers seeking to fill open positions will turn their attention to employers already employed. Accordingly, in addition to evaluating their ability to recruit qualified workers away from other employers, employers should anticipate and prepare for the likelihood that other employers increasingly will target their workers for recruitment.

Adequate analysis and preparation now could help position their businesses both to retain valuable workers and recruit new or replacement workers to fulfill their staffing leads. Beyond considering the adequacy of current recruitment, compensation, benefits, work rules and culture to compete effectively amid the evolving labor market, business leaders also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy and enforceability of trade secret, noncompetition and solicitation, and other legal and operational controls to protect their organization’s workforce and intellectual property from turnover related threats and dilution both as they relate to new hires and potential departing employees.

About The Author

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition | 401(k), directors, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Executive Compensation, health plan, Management, Managment, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Uncategorized | Tagged: Economy, Employer, Hiring, HR, Job Growth, Labor, Labor Management Relations, Labor Pool, Labor Statistics, Management, Recruiting, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Barred From Forcing Employers To Report Labor Relations Advice Under Persuader Rule Injunction

November 18, 2016

Employers paying lawyers or other labor relations consultants for advice or help deterring or responding to unionization organizing activities do not have comply with the controversial “Persuader Rule” reporting and disclosure requirements the Department Of Labor (DOL) tried to impose as part of the Obama Administration’s broader aggressive efforts to empower unions and worker organizing efforts. That’s the effect of U.S. District Court Justice Sam Cummings’ November 16, 2016 National Federation of Independent Business v. Perez decision striking down as invalid and permanently enjoining the DOL from enforcing its regulation officially titled “Interpretation of the ‘Advice’ Exemption in Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act,” commonly referred to as the “Persuader Rule.”

Before DOL adopted the Persuader Rule, there was no requirement to when lawyers or consultants spoke with or advised employers about opposition to union efforts unless the consultant had direct contact with workers. As revised by the Obama Administration, however, the Persuader Rule required employers and consultants—including lawyers—to report both direct contact with workers as well as advice or other help provided to employers by lawyers or consultants about persuading employees on union issues such as training supervisors or employer representatives to conduct meetings; coordinating or directing the activities of supervisors or employer representatives; establishing or facilitating employee committees; drafting, revising or providing speeches; conducting union avoidance seminars; developing or implementing employer personnel policies; involvement in disciplinary action, reward, or other targeting of workers; or various other activities designed to influence union organization matters.

Scheduled to take effect in July, 2016, DOL’s implementation and enforcement of the Persuader Rule originally was delayed by a June 27, 2016 preliminary injunction issued by Justice Cummings that nationally enjoined DOL from implementing any and all aspects of the Persuader Rule based on his findings, among other things, that the plaintiffs likely would succeed on the merits in showing the Persuader Rule:

Violated their right to hire and consult with an attorney, free speech, expression and association rights protected by the First Amendment;
Was overly broad and unacceptably vague;
Violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act; and
Would irreparably harm employers.

After a hearing on the merits, Justice Cummings ruled that the June, 2016 injunction should be made permanent. His November 16, 2016 final order in National Federation of Independent Business v. Perez, permanently enjoins DOL from implementing the Persuader Rule nationwide. Accordingly, employers and their labor attorneys and other labor management consultants are excused from responsibility to comply with the reporting requirements of the Persuader Rule.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment, employee benefits, compensation, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on DOL Barred From Forcing Employers To Report Labor Relations Advice Under Persuader Rule Injunction | Employer, Employers, HR, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Reporting & Disclosure, Risk Management, Uncategorized, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Tagged: business, Employee, Employer, Human Resources, Labor, Labor Department, Labor-Management, labor-management relations, National Labor Relations Act, unionization, unions | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL “Persuader Rule” Changes Broaden Employer & Consultant Anti-Union Contract Disclosure Duties

March 23, 2016

By: Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The Obama Administration is moving forward on yet another effort to empower union organizing efforts and disempower employer efforts to fight union organization efforts by changing its regulations implementing the “persuader rule” of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) to expand the circumstances under which the Labor Department’s “persuader rule” requires employers to disclose arrangements made with consultants to assist the employer to oppose union efforts by filing the Form LM-10 (employer report) and consultants providing anti-union services to file the Form LM-20 (agreement and activities report). See DOL persuader rule Fact Sheet, Overview/Summary and a Question and Answers. Employers, consultants and others involved in labor-management relations management or training will want to review and update their risk management and compliance practices in light of this impending change.

Current U.S. Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards (Labor Department) regulations implementing Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA) generally require employers and labor relations consultants to with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) a Form LM-10 Employer Report, Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report, and Form LM-21 Receipts and Disbursements Report whenever the employer and the consultant enter into an agreement or arrangement for the consultant directly to undertake activities with either of the following objectives:

To persuade employees about exercising their rights to organize and bargain collectively or
To supply an employer with certain information concerning the activities of employees or a labor organization in connection with a labor dispute involving the employer.

Employer Report Form LM-10

Specifically, Labor Department Regulations generally require employers to report by filing with the Labor Department the Form LM-10 if they make certain expenditures or engage in certain activities, including entering into agreements or arrangements with any third party consultant, to persuade employees concerning their collective bargaining or organizing rights or to obtain certain information. Employers currently are not required to file Form LM-10 reports covering attendance at union avoidance seminars, though consultants who present at these seminars must file LM-20 reports, however. The Form LM-10 must be signed by the president and the treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the reporting employer, or by the sole proprietor, as appropriate. Employers also should be aware that Labor Department rules also require employers to report other items not related to persuader activities or expenditures on Form LM-10. Pursuant to LMRDA Section 203(a), employers must also file the Form LM-10 to report certain payments to unions and individuals affiliated with unions, including any officer, employee, shop steward, or agent of a labor organization. There are exceptions to the filing requirements, and these are noted in the Form LM-10 instructions. The Form LM-10 report must be filed electronically within 90 days after the end of the employer’s fiscal year. Employers are required to file only one Form LM-10 report each fiscal year covering all instances of reportable activity even if, for example, activity occurs at multiple locations or the employer enters into more than one consultant agreement

Consultant Report Form LM-20 and 21

In addition to the employer reporting requirements, Labor Department implementing rules for Section 203(b) requires any person, including a labor relations consultant, to file a report, Form LM-20, to disclose agreements or arrangements with any employer pursuant to which the person undertakes activities with the intent to persuade employees concerning their collective bargaining or organizing rights or to obtain certain information. The required LM-20 report is due within 30 days after entering into a reportable agreement, except for reports covering union avoidance seminars, which are due 30 days after the conclusion of the seminar. Such individuals or organizations must file a separate Form LM-20 for each agreement or arrangement they make with an employer, and attach a copy of any written agreement. The report must be signed by the president and the treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the consultant firm or, if the filer is self-employed, by the individual consultant.

Broadening Of Actions Subject To Persuader Rule

Presently, the Labor Department generally only required reporting of an employer-consultant agreement only if the consultant communicated directly to the workers. Under the new “persuader rule” scheduled for publication in the March 24, 2016 Federal Register, however, the Labor Department will expand the duty to report to include both direct communications and other “indirect” activities by a consultant to assist an employer with anti-union efforts.

As amended by the persuader rule, Labor Department regulations generally will require employers and their consultants to file the Form LM-10 employer report and the Form LM-20 agreement and activities report disclosing an anti-union employer-consultant agreement whenever a consultant engages “any actions, conduct, or communications that are undertaken with an object, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, to affect an employee’s decisions regarding his or her representation or collective bargaining rights.” The final persuader rule scheduled for publication on March 24, 2016 also will provide that consultant activities that trigger reporting include direct contact with employees with an object to persuade them as well as the following categories of indirect consultant activity:

Planning, directing, or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives, including meetings and interactions with employees;
Providing materials or communications for dissemination to employees;
Conducting a union avoidance seminar for supervisors or other employer representatives; and
Developing or implementing personnel policies, practices, or actions for the employer.

Prepare To Meet Broadened Requirements

Following its publication in the March 24, Federal Register, the persuader rule is scheduled to take effect on April 25, 2016 and apply to arrangements, agreements, and payments made on or after July 1, 2016.

The Labor Department’s final adoption of the persuader rule tomorrow comes despite widespread criticism by employers, management consultants and many management legal counsels as overly broad and potentially infringing on management’s attorney-client privilege rights with respect to advice provided by legal counsel to management. As a result of these and other concerns, most commentators expect the changes to the persuader rule to face widespread challenges in the courts.

Whether or not these challenges materialize, employers as well as consultants and legal counsel involved in anti-union organization efforts will need to carefully evaluate the revised reporting requirements to take into account the persuader rule’s expansion to the reporting requirements. Employers anticipating potential union activity or training and the lawyers and labor consultants and labor-management educators providing or offering services will want to carefully evaluate the changes and modify practices in light of the impending changes to the rule.

About The Author

Recognized as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law extensively involved in health and other employee benefit and human resources policy and program design and administration representation and advocacy throughout her career, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., a member of Stamer│Chadwick│Soefje PLLC, author, pubic speaker, management policy advocate and industry thought leader with more than 27 years’ experience practicing at the forefront of employee benefits and human resources law.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on health and other employee benefit, human resources and insurance matters and policy.

Ms. Stamer helps management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30- year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the Affordable Care Act and other health care, pension, social security, workforce, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For instance, Ms. Stamer presently serves on an American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; Immediate Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, its current Welfare Benefit Plans Committee Co-Chair, on its Substantive Groups & Committee and its incoming Defined Contribution Plan Committee Chair and Practice Management Vice Chair; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and a current member of its Healthcare Coordinating Council; current Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; the former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. She also previously served as a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or StamerChadwickSoefje.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™. All other rights reserved.

41614421-modified-one-way-signs-indicating-management-and-labor

Comments Off on DOL “Persuader Rule” Changes Broaden Employer & Consultant Anti-Union Contract Disclosure Duties | Employer, Employers, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Risk Management, Uncategorized, Union, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Tagged: Employer, HR, Human Resources, Labor, Management, Training, Union | 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

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks.

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

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

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

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

NLRB To Review, Invites Briefs In Cases Involving Voluntary Recognition Agreements & Successor Employers

August 31, 2010

A newly constituted National Labor Relations Board in a narrow 3-to-2 vote has granted review and is inviting interested parties to file briefs in two sets of cases that question when a labor union’s support among employees can be challenged.

In one set of cases, the newly-constituted Board will reconsider the Board’s 2007 ruling that an employer that agrees to voluntarily recognize a union based on signed authorization cards must post a notice advising the employees that they have a right within 45 days of the notice to file a petition for an election to decertify the union or in support of a rival union, if they so desire.

In the second set of cases, Board is set to reconsider the Board’s rulings that a successor employer duty to recognize and bargain with a union recognized by its predecessor can be challenged by the employer, employees, or a rival union.

Get more details here.

The decisions made by the Board could have significant impacts on the responsibilities of employers to recognize and deal with unions. Employers and others concerned with labor-management relations should monitor, and if appropriate, consider sharing their perspective through a timely submitted brief in these matters.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance reviewing or responding to the request for comments or otherwise dealing with labor 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 union organizing and certification, collective bargaining 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 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 labor, human resources and other workforce management 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

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.

Comments Off on NLRB To Review, Invites Briefs In Cases Involving Voluntary Recognition Agreements & Successor Employers | Employers, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations | Tagged: Collective Bargaining, Human Resources, Labor, Labor-Management, NLRA, NLRB, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, union certification, Union Decertification | 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

Employers Concerned About New Union Powers As NLRB Orders Union Elections In 31 California Health Care Facilities To Proceed

March 2, 2010

March 2, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Director Alan B. Reichard has ordered elections to proceed between rival unions in about 31 health care facilities in northern California. The decision comes as President Obama and Democratic Leaders in Congress continue to avow their support for legislation intended to lower barriers to union organization.

The Monday, March 2, 2010 order by Regional Director Reichard sets the stage for elections between the Service Employees International /United Healthcare Workers-West (SEIU-UHW) and the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which are competing to represent thousands of health care workers throughout California. Under the order, some elections may be preceded by hearings to clarify the voting group; others will proceed by agreement of the parties regarding such issues as voting dates and times and voter eligibility.

While the order allows elections in many facilities to proceed, approximately 32 elections are still blocked by allegations brought by SEIU-UHW against NUHW and its principals. These allegations remain under active consideration by the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel.

To review the March 2, 2010, see here.

Health industry workers increasingly are viewed as attractive targets for union organization around the country. Many of these organizing efforts are helped by a series of NLRB decisions that ease the way for union organization of certain physician and other health care provider groups.

Many health care organizations and other employers are concerned about the potential financial and operational costs that organization of their workforce might produce. Whether concerned about the potential for future organization activities, confronting a union certification election or dealing with union representation in their workplace, health industry and other employers concerned about union organizing or representational activities must act carefully.

Federal labor law requires that employers tread carefully when dealing with union or other organizational activity. Existing federal law limits the actions that employers can take to deter or influence worker choices about whether to support or oppose a union certification campaign, to influence the certification of one union representative over another.

Legislation supported by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Leadership in Congress such as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (H.R.1409 /S 560) would further expand these protections. If adopted as proposed, this legislation would further facilitate union organizing efforts and give union representatives new tools to pressure employers for contractual concessions to union negotiations.

Health industry and other employers concerned with these issues generally should carefully monitor and respond to proposed legislation and consult with qualified labor and employment counsel before discussing or taking other action in response to these activities to minimize risks of unintentionally running afoul of these requirements and to position their efforts for maximum effectiveness.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your organization need advice or assistance with these or other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation or related matters, consider contacting Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and representing management about labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation and other related management matters. A nationally recognized author and lecturer, Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information 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 Employers Concerned About New Union Powers As NLRB Orders Union Elections In 31 California Health Care Facilities To Proceed | Employers, Union | Tagged: Employers, Free Choice Act, Health Care, Labor, NLRA, NLRB, Union, union certification, unionization | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Labor Department Rule Allows Employers 7 Days To Deliver Employee Contributions To Employee Benefit Plans

January 14, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Regulations published by the Department of Labor today (January 14, 2010) offer employers the opportunity to know their deposit of employee contributions and other amounts withheld from wages or otherwise received from employees with a pension, profit-sharing, health, or other welfare benefit plan is timely for purposes of the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the prohibited transaction rules of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) by depositing those amounts with the plan within the seven day period specified in a new safe harbor included in the Regulations.

Certainty about the timeliness of these deposits is important, as mishandling of these employee contributions, participant loan repayments or other employee benefit plan assets frequently triggers judgments, fines and penalties against companies that sponsor employee benefit plans as well as owners, board members, or other members of management. See Mishandling Employee Benefit Obligations Creates Big Liabilities For Distressed Businesses & Their Leaders. Consequently, businesses sponsoring employee benefit programs and owners, officers, directors or other members of management with authority over or responsibility for the handling or application of amounts withheld or collected from employees as employee contributions or plan loans should make arrangements for these amounts to be properly handled and timely deposited with the appropriate employee benefit plan in accordance with these new plan asset regulations.

Title I of ERISA generally requires that employee benefit “plan assets” be held in trust, prudently handled and invested, used for the exclusive benefit of the plan and its participants, and otherwise used and administered in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. Meanwhile, the use of “plan assets” of certain employee benefit plans in a manner prohibited by the Code’s prohibited transaction rules also may trigger excise taxes and other penalties.

For purposes of both ERISA and the Code, Labor Department Regulation § 2510.3-102, specifies that amounts (other than union dues) that an employer withholds from wages or otherwise collects from employees as employee contributions or loan repayments to an employee benefit plan generally become plan assets subject to these fiduciary responsibility rules “as of the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets.” Since employers, business owners, members of management can risk exposure to damages, administrative penalties and/or excise taxes, knowing when amounts collected from employees are considered plan assets is a critical first step to managing these risks.

Unfortunately, the subjectivity of this standard leaves room for much uncertainty and debate about the precise deadline by which employee contributions, plan loans and other amounts from employees must be received by the plan. The subjectivity inherent in this standard leaves many employers uncertain about the adequacy of their compliance efforts and frequently fuels debate among plans, debtors, creditors, regulators or others about the when amounts earmarked to be withheld from employee wages cease to be assets of the debtor employer and become plan assets.

To mitigate debate and uncertainty about the timing of these events, Labor Department Regulation § 2510.3-102 as published in final form today includes a new “safe harbor” rule for plans with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year. Under the safe harbor, employee contributions, plan loans and other amounts withheld from wages or received from employees for payment to an employee benefit plan are treated as treated timely paid to the plan if deposited with the plan not later than the 7th business day following the day on which such amount is received by the employer (in the case of amounts that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer), or the 7th business day following the day on which such amount would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash (in the case of amounts withheld by an employer from a participant’s wages). While this safe harbor assures employers and others that withhold from wages or receive employee contributions or participant loan payments owing to less than 100 participant plans that their deposit will be considered timely if received by the plan within seven days, the plan asset regulations leave open that deposit with the plan more than 7 after receipt might still be considered timely deposit with the plan under certain circumstance.

Where deposit with the plan is not made within the seven-day period established by the safe harbor, the plan asset rules continue to leave room for great subjectivity in the determination of the deadline for deposit. In addition to the seven-day safe harbor, the plan asset regulations clearly establish bright-line deadlines after which the deposit of employee contribution or plan loan amounts always will be considered untimely. Thus, the plan asset rules provide that the deadline for depositing employee contributions and plan loans with the plan in no event ever extends beyond the applicable of the following dates (the “Latest Date”)

For pension plans, the 15th business day of the month following the month in which the employee contribution or participant loan repayment amounts are withheld or received by the employer;
With respect to a SIMPLE plan that involves SIMPLE IRAs the 30th calendar day following the month in which the participant contribution amounts would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash; and
For health and other welfare benefit plans, 90 days from the date on which the employee contribution is withheld or received by the employer.

In all other instances, the plan asset regulations leave open to uncertainty and debate when and if an employer’s deposit of employee contributions and plan loans more than seven-days after payroll deduction or receipt but before the Latest Date will qualify as timely for purposes of ERISA Title I or the Code’s prohibited transaction provisions.

Companies and owners, officers and directors of businesses that harm plans by failing to ensure that these amounts are timely deposited into an employee benefit plan or otherwise are involved in the mishandling of these funds frequently become subject to prosecution, damage awards, civil penalties and excise taxes. To mitigate potential exposure to these risks, businesses and leaders of businesses that withhold from wages or collect employee contributions or plan loan payments from employees should make arrangements to ensure that these amounts timely are deposited with the appropriate plans and otherwise handled appropriately in accordance with ERISA and the Code.

If your business or employee benefit plan needs assistance evaluating or responding to these or other employee benefit, or other employment, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance or other concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information 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 New Labor Department Rule Allows Employers 7 Days To Deliver Employee Contributions To Employee Benefit Plans | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Employee Benefits, employee contributions, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Minimum Wage, pension plans, plan loans, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, welfare plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

President Signs Law Extending & Expanding Temporary AARA COBRA Subsidy Requirements For Group Health Plans

December 22, 2009

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer and union sponsored group health plans, their sponsors and administrators must act quickly to comply with the extension and expansion of temporary “COBRA Subsidy Rules” for “assistance eligible individuals” originally added to the group health plan medical coverage continuation requirements of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (“COBRA”) by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“AARA”) last February.

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326) signed into law by President Obama on December 19, 2009 extended the period that employer and union-sponsored group health plans must allow employees and members of their family that lose group health plan coverage due to an involuntary employment loss to continue their group medical coverage under the reduced premium and other temporary ARRA COBRA Subsidy Rules and lengthened the period during which an involuntary employment loss can qualify an otherwise COBRA-eligible employee or dependent as an assistance eligible individual.

Original COBRA Subsidy Rules

As originally enacted, the ARRA COBRA Subsidy Rules limited the COBRA premium that a COBRA-covered group health plan could charge a COBRA-eligible employee or dependent whose group health plan eligibility ended due to an involuntary employment loss between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 (“assistance eligible individual”) to 35% of the otherwise applicable COBRA premium (the “Reduced ARRA Premium”) for a period of up to 9 months (the “Subsidy Period”). ARRA dictated that employers sponsoring these group health plans must pay the remaining 65% of the COBRA premium (the “COBRA Subsidy”) for the assistance eligible individual during the Subsidy Period, but allowed employers to seek reimbursement by claiming a payroll tax credit for these COBRA Subsidy payments by complying with applicable IRS procedures. AARA also mandated that group health plans offering a choice of coverage options offer assistance eligible individuals the option to switch coverage options and required group health plans to notify assistance eligible individuals of the special COBRA Subsidy Rules.

H.R. 3326 COBRA Subsidy Rules Extension

As signed into law on December 19, 2009, H.R. 3326:

Extends the period during which an involuntary employment loss can qualify an otherwise COBRA-eligible employee or dependent as an assistance eligible individual for an additional two months (from December 31, 2009 to February 28, 2010);
Adds an additional six months (from 9 to 15 months) the Subsidy Period during which an assistance eligible individual experiencing an involuntary loss of employment between September 1, 2008 and February 28, 2010 is entitled to pay the Reduced AARA Premium;
Requires group health plans to notify assistance eligible individuals of the extension; and
Requires group health plans to allow additional time for assistance eligible individuals who had exhausted their original 9-month Subsidy Period before H.R. 3326 extended the Subsidy Period to 15 months to pay the Reduced AARA Premium related to the extension.

Group health plans, their employer or union sponsors, administrators, insurers and service providers will need to act quickly to prepare and provider required updated notifications to assistance eligible individuals of these extended eligibility periods and their resulting rights, and otherwise update their plan documents, procedures, and COBRA notifications in light of these new rules.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to these or other employment, health or other employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance or other concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. The author of the “Health Plan Eligibility Toolkit,” Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, insurers, administrators, and others to design and administer group health plans cost-effectively in accordance with COBRA and other applicable federal regulations as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators.. Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, a representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information 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 President Signs Law Extending & Expanding Temporary AARA COBRA Subsidy Requirements For Group Health Plans | ARRA, Bankruptcy, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Public Policy, Stimulus Bill, Tax | Tagged: ARRA COBRA Premium, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Health Insurance, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Labor, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Stimulus Bill, Subsidy Bill, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Shares 2010 Regulatory Plans Monday, December 7; Get A Sneak Peek on Its Plans

December 5, 2009

Get a peek at the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) regulatory plans for 2010 on Monday, December 10, 2009.

On Monday, Dec. 7, the DOL will release its annual regulatory agenda for the upcoming year. The same day, it also will video cast remarks by Secretary Hilda L. Solis outlining the department’s regulatory agenda beginning at 10 a.m. EST. From 2 to 3 p.m. EST Ssecretary Solis alsowill host a live Web chat open to the public to discuss the contents of the agenda. Questions may be submitted in advance of the chat following the video presentation. Register to join the chat on Monday here.

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

Other Information & Resources

IRS Publishes Table For Determining Qualified Plan Covered Compensation for Purposes of Code § 401(l)(5)(E) PBGC Expands Pension Benefit Protection For Military Service Members As Justice Department Files 22nd USERRA Military Leave Lawsuit Against An Employer Since January Rising Defined Benefit Plan Underfunding & Changing Rules Create New Obligations & Risks For Business Justice Department Suit against MasTec Advanced Technologies For Violating Army Reserve Member’s Rights Highlights Expanding Employer Military Leave Risks & Liabilities Preventive HR Strategies to Minimize Post Holiday Celebration Legal Hangovers Employer H1N1 Virus Risk Management Requires Employer Care To Manage Virus Risks Without Violating Employment Discrimination or Other Laws

New GINA Genetic Information Based Employment Discrimination & Confidentiality Mandates Take EffectBusinesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision OFCCP To Apply Special Procedures, Heightened Scrutiny To Equal Employment Practices of Government Contractors, Subcontractors On ARRA Funded Projects US and UK Agree to Share Information & Cooperate On Pension Security As US Defined Benefit Plan Sponsors Face Tough New Defined Benefit Plan Funding Requirements Congress Considering Extending & Expanding Group Health Plan COBRA Subsidy Mandates On Heels of Enactment of Expanded Military Leave-Related Family Leave Mandates EEOC Prepares To Broaden “Disability” Definition Under ADA Regulations Tighten Employment, Ethics & Internal Controls Policies & Practices To Minimize DOJ & Other Antitrust Exposures OSHA Final Rule Updates OSHA Personal Protective Equipment Standards “Disability” Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23

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 DOL Shares 2010 Regulatory Plans Monday, December 7; Get A Sneak Peek on Its Plans | Absenteeism, Affirmative Action, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, ERISA, family leave, FMLA, GINA, Government Contractors, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, medical leave, Military Leave, Nonresident aliens, OFCCP, OSHA, Public Policy, Reporting & Disclosure, Retaliation, Safety, USERRA, Wage & Hour, Wellness, Whistleblower | Tagged: ADA, COBRA, Compensation, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employmemnt Liability, Employment, Employment Agreements, employment discrimination, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Light Duty, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Military Leave, Minimum Wage, Occupational Injury, Overtime, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

December 4, 2009

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

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

Complex New Rules Increase Underfunding Risks & Obligations

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

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

New Defined Benefit Plan Regulations Complex Maze of Burdensome Requirements

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

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

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

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

On November 23, 2009, PBGC published:

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

On December 1, 2009, PBGC:

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

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

Previously, during 2009, the PBGC also:

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

Free December 10 Study Group Teleconference Examines New Requirements

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

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

The conference call will be moderated by:

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

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

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Attorneys Can Help

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

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

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

Other Information & Resources

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

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

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

Preventive HR Strategies to Minimize Post Holiday Celebration Legal Hangovers

November 30, 2009

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

Discrimination & Sexual Harassment

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

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

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

Alcohol Consumption

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

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

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

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

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

Gift Giving & Gratuities

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

Performance, Attendance & Time Off

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

Timely Investigation & Notification

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

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

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

Other Information & Resources

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

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

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

November 30, 2009

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

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

Preventing, Recognizing & Mitigating Risks of H1N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CDC recommends individuals diagnosed with H1N1 flu should:

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

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

Employers Must Employment Discrimination & Other Legal Compliance Risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Information & Resources

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

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

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

August 24, 2009

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

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

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

HITECH Act Data Breach and Unsecured PHI Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About The Presenter

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

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

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on our electronic Curran Tomko Tarski LLP publications available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

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

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

Speak Up America: Where & How To Read & Share Your Feedback About The Health Care Reform Legislation

August 1, 2009

As the health care reform policy debate continues, Americans increasingly are asking where to read the text of the health care reform legislation that members of Congress are debating and how to share their input.

While numerous alternatives presently are pending before Congress, much of recent discussion and debate has focused around one of the following bills:

H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, introduced in the House by Rep Dingell, John D. on July 14, 2009 the text of which as originally introduced may be reviewed here. It has been the focus of significant mark up negotiation through out July before the following House Energy and Commerce, House Ways & Means, and House Education & Labor Committees; and
S. __, the Affordable Health Choices Act approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the text of which as approved may be reviewed here.

When reviewing these bills, Americans should keep in mind that members of Congress are engaged in ongoing negotiations about the specific provisions and language of these bills, as well as other legislation. Official developments generally may be monitored here.

Many American businesses and individuals also are asking about how and where to share their views, how to organize others to do the same and other questions about getting the word out. Here a some quick ideas. We encourage others to share.

The Coalition For Patient Empowerment and the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform linkedin group are two one of many resources where individuals are sharing information about these matters.
Concerned individuals should share their views both by faxing, e-mailing or telephoning key decisionmakers in Congress, as well as joining and participating in activities of other individuals and groups that share their concerns. Contact and get involved with this and other groups that share your concerns.
Contact the offices of your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate as well as other members of Congress that support your views and ask them about other groups and ways that you can share your views. They will welcome your input and involvement.
If you are aware of or involved in a group that shares your views, we encourage you to share it on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform linkedin group. If you or others are planning a town hall or other health care reform meeting, use this or other linked in groups to spread the word.
If you are interested in volunteering to plan events in your region, let us know.

We also encourage you and others to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin, and registering to receive these updates here.

When communicating, consider targeting your messages to members of Congress whose votes are likely to be impacted by your communications.

For instance, with both the House and Senate in the majority in Congress, Democrats generally have greater control over what legislation moves forward. The Democratic Leadership of the House and Sentate generally can get legislation passed by their members as long as they can maintain consensus among the members of their parties. In connection with the health care reform proposals, however, cost and other considerations have made maintaining a consensus more difficult than on other legislation. Certain fiscally moderate members of the Democratic Party have expressed concern about the expense and other aspects of their Leadership proposed health care reform proposals. These Democrats in Congress generally the members of Congress whose votes are most likely to be impacted by public input and feedback generally and from voters in their districts and contributors specifically.

In the House of Representatives, these members likely are the “Blue Dog Democrats.” Read about Blue Dog Democrats here.

The fiscal conservatism of Blue Dog Democrats makes them more likely to listen to concerns about the cost and other concerns relating to the health care reform bills touted by the Democrat Leadership in the House and Senate. In fact, many Blue Dog Democrats already are speaking out about their concerns about the cost and other aspects of the Bill.

Contact from voters and contributors in their districts and others could make a major difference in the ability that the House Democrat Leadership needs to pass their Bill. Immediately contacting these members and getting others – particularly voters and contributors in the districts that elect these members – is one of the most important steps that concerned Americans can do to position their concerns to be heard.

For most concerned voters, telephone or fax contact is the best means to convey these messages. To minimize spam, most members only accept e-mail submitted through their website links. Security concerns can delay receipt of written correspondence for weeks.

For persons interested in making their voices heard and sharing information with others who wish to do the same, the following contact information may be of interest:

The number of the Capital Switchboard is 202-224-3121.

The Blue Dog Leadership Team and there telephone and fax numbers are:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration, Telephone: 202.225.2801 , Fax: 202.225.5823

Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy,Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-6866

Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944

Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip, Telephone: 202-225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422

The Blue Dog Members and their telephone numbers are :

Altmire, Jason (PA-04),(202)225-2565
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24), (202)225-3665
Baca, Joe (CA-43),(202)225-6161
Barrow, John (GA-12), (202) 225-2823
Berry, Marion (AR-01), (202) 225-4076
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02), (202) 225-3631
Boren, Dan (OK-02), (202) 225-2701
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03), (202) 225-3806
Boyd, Allen (FL-02), (202) 225-5235
Bright, Bobby (AL-02), (202) 225-2901
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18), (202) 225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10), (202) 225-3731
Chandler, Ben (KY-06), (202) 225-4706
Childers, Travis (MS-01), (202) 225-4306
Cooper, Jim (TN 5^th), (202) 225-4311
Costa, Jim (CA 20^th), (202) 225-3341
Cuellar, Henry (TX 28^th), (202) 225-1640
Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. (PA 3^rd), (202) 225-5406
Davis, Lincoln (TN 4^th),(202) 225-6831
Donnelly, Joe (IN 2^nd), (202) 225-3915
Ellsworth, Brad (IN 8^th), (202) 225-4636
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ 8^th), (202) 225-2542
Gordon, Bart (TN 6^th), (202) 225-4231
Griffith, Parker (AL 5^th), (202) 225-4801
Harman, Jane (CA 36^th), (202) 225-8220
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD At Large), (202) 225-2801
Hill, Baron P. (IN 9^th), (202) 225-5315
Holden, Tim (PA 17^th), (202) 225-5546
Kratovil, Frank Jr. (MD 1^st), (202) 225-5311
McIntyre, Mike (NC 7^th), (202) 225-2731
Marshall, Jim (GA 8^th), (202) 225-6531
Matheson, Jim (UT 2^nd), (202) 225-3011
Melancon, Charlie (LA 3^rd), (202) 225-4031
Michaud, Michael H. (ME 2^nd), (202) 225-6306
Minnick, Walt (ID 1^st), (202) 225-6611
Mitchell, Harry E. (AZ 5^th), (202) 225-2190
Moore, Dennis (KS 3^rd), (202) 225-2865
Murphy, Patrick J. (PA 8^th), (202) 225-4276
Nye, Glenn C. (VA 2^nd), (202) 225-4215
Peterson, Collin C. (MN 7^th), (202) 225-2165
Pomeroy, Earl (ND At Large), (202) 225-2611
Ross, Mike (AR 4^th), (202) 225-3772
Salazar, John T. (CO 3^rd), (202) 225-4761
Sanchez, Loretta (CA 47^th), (202) 225-2965
Schiff, Adam B. (CA 29^th), (202) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA 13^th), (202) 225-2939
Shuler, Heath (NC 11^th), (202) 225-6401
Space, Zachary T. (OH 18^th), (202) 225-6265
Tanner, John S. (TN 8^th), (202) 225-4714
Taylor, Gene (MS 4^th), (202) 225-5772
Thompson, Mike (CA 1^st), (202) 225-3311
Wilson, Charles (OH-06), (202) 225-5705

You and others also are invited to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by:

Joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin and registering to receive these updates here; and
E-mailing Cstamer@cttlegal.com to participate in the Coalition for Patient Empowerment.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your business needs assistance monitoring or providing input on health care reform or other human resources, employee benefit or compensation legislation or regulations, or auditing, updating or defending its health or other employee benefit, human resources, or compensation arrangements, or responding to employee benefits, employment or compensation related charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employer and employee benefit plan sponsors, administrators and others about labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising and defending these and other clients in labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit Plans and Other Compensation Group, a member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience with health and retirement, work force and other employee benefit and employment matters. She is nationally and internationally known for her innovative work with employers, associations, churches, insurers and others to develop health benefit, onsight medical, wellness and other employee benefit and employment arrangements, as well as her involvement in health care, pension and other public policy advocacy.

More Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Comments Off on Speak Up America: Where & How To Read & Share Your Feedback About The Health Care Reform Legislation | Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Immigration, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Preemption, Professional Liability, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Labor, Managed Care, Medical Coverage | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

July 22, 2009

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

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

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

The Crawford Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Broader Potential Implications & Lessons From Crawford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

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

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

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

More Information & Resources

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

Democrats Introduce Health Care Reform Legislation, Work To Fast Track Enactment

June 11, 2009

Coalition For Responsible Health Care Reform Founded To Help Concerned Americans Respond

Americans concerned about plans of President Obama and Congressional Democrats to enact comprehensive health care reform this year must speak up now.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday (June 9, 2009) circulated a 625 page proposal to radically reform the U.S. health care system. The latest draft of the “Affordable Health Choices Act” (the “Act”) details the comprehensive health care reforms that President Obama and Democrats in Congress propose to enact before year end.

President Obama and key Congressional Democrats are moving quickly to enact their vision for “comprehensive health reform” this year. The Act circulated yesterday by Senator Kennedy would radically change the U.S. health care system in enacted as currently proposed.

Consistent with announced plans by President Obama and key Congressional Democrats to enact “comprehensive health care reform” this year, Democratic leaders in Congress are rushing to enact this legislation well before year end. In furtherance of plans to fast track enactment of the Act, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) chaired by Senator Kennedy will hold a hearing on the Act this week in anticipation of meetings to mark up of the Act on Tuesday, June 16 at 2:30 p.m. in Russell 325.

The Act, as proposed, would make sweeping changes to the U.S. health care system and radically expand the involvement of government in the delivery and financing of health care. Among other things, the Act as proposed would:

Establish government provided “Gateway” health care coverage programs to provide coverage for Americans not insured under qualifying employer or other privately run “qualified health plan” to be financed in part through surcharges on private health plans and health insurers and other taxes and assessments and in part through premiums on enrolled individuals
Require that Americans participating in the Gateway health care coverage programs be offered the opportunity to enroll in at least one “public health insurance option”
Require Americans to chose either to enroll in a government run Gateway health program or enroll in qualifying coverage under a privately run qualified health plan
Impose sweeping new mandates on employer and union-sponsored group health plans and insurers
Impose newly created taxes on individuals that fail to maintain enrollment in health coverage under either a Gateway health program or a private qualified health plan
Tax and/or eliminate the deductibility of health coverage premiums and certain other amounts paid by certain employers and employees
Impose new federal mandates for health care providers, health plans and health insurers relating to the quality standards, the use of health care technology and other matters
Grant federal regulators sweeping authority to define what qualifies as appropriate health care and health care coverage, the health care services that qualify for health care coverage and the payment and delivery of health care services.

You can review a copy of currently proposed provisions of the 615 page Act here.

Individuals concerned about these and other proposed health care reforms must act immediately to become familiar and share their input on the proposals.

Assistance Monitoring & Responding To Health Care Reform Proposals

If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about health care reform proposals and other related legislative, regulatory, and enforcement developments, please:

Register for this resource at the link above;
Join the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy group at linkedin.com to share information and input;
Share your input by communicating with key members of Congress on committees responsible for this legislation and your elected officials directly and by actively participating in and contributing to other like-minded groups; and
Be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here.

You can register to receive future updates on legislative and regulatory health care reform proposals and other related information by registering for this resource or access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources here.

Long-time health policy advocate and advisor Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 22 years of experience advising and assisting clients to evaluate and respond to health care reform proposals and other proposed or adopted changes in federal or state health care, employee benefit, employment, tax and other federal and state laws. Former Chair of the American Bar Association’s Managed Care & Insurance Section, Ms. Stamer is highly regarded legal advisor, policy advocate, author and speaker recognized both nationally and internationally for her more than 20 years of work assisting U.S. public and private employers, health care providers, health insurers, and a broad range of other clients to respond to these and other health care, employee benefit and workforce public policy, regulatory and compliance and risk management concerns within the U.S. as well as internationally. Her work includes extensive involvement providing input and assistance about health care, workforce, pensions and social security and other reforms domestically and internationally. In addition to her continuous involvement in U.S. health care, pensions and savings, and workforce policy matters, Ms. Stamer has served as an advisor on these matters internationally. As part of this work, she served as a lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its social security reform as well as has provided input on ethics, medical tourism, workforce and other reforms internationally.

Ms. Stamer is a widely published author and popular speaker on health plan and other human resources, employee benefits and internal controls issues. Her work has been featured and published by the American Bar Association, BNA, SHRM, World At Work, Employee Benefit News and the American Health Lawyers Association. Her insights on human resources risk management matters have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, Managed Care Executive, HealthLeaders, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News and the Dallas Morning News.

Ms. Stamer also serves in a number of professional leadership roles including the leadership council of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice Chair of the ABA Real Property, Probate & Trust Section and Employee Benefits & Compensation Group.

If your organization needs assistance with monitoring, assessing, or responding to these or other health care, employee benefit or human resources reforms, please contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail here, or by calling (214) 270-2402. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here.

Additional Resources & Information

Comments Off on Democrats Introduce Health Care Reform Legislation, Work To Fast Track Enactment | Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Health Choices Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, ERISA, health benefit mandates, health care finance, health care IT, health care quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, health premiums, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Labor, Managed Care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Coverage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Occupational Injury, Premium Subsidy, uninsured | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

June 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys at here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions here. Also stay abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controls distributions. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

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

Stamer Moderates June 25 ABA Teleconference On When Benefits Lawyers and Other Service Providers Be Sued for Malpractice for Services to ERISA Plans

June 9, 2009

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will moderate a June 25, 2009 teleconference on “Can Benefits Lawyers and Other Service Providers Be Sued for Malpractice for Services to ERISA Plans?”

The telephone conference hosted by the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) is scheduled for Thursday, June 25, 2009 from 1:00-2:00 pm Eastern Time, 12:00-1:00 pm Central Time, 11:00 am-12:00 pm Mountain Time, and 10:00 am-11:00 am Pacific Time.

The teleconference will feature a discussion by Hogan & Hartson LLP attorney Kurt Lawson and AARP Foundation Litigation attorney Mary Ellen Signorille about how the federal precedent governing when and how ERISA preemption affects state malpractice and misfeasance claims against accountants, lawyers, health care providers, actuaries and others has evolved during the five year period since the United State’s Aetna v. Davila decision reframed when ERISA preempts state law malpractice claims and the implications of this precedent on the viability and litigation of these state law malpractice claims.

To register or for additional information, go to here.

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association’s Managed Care & Insurance Section, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a highly regarded legal advisor, author and speaker recognized both nationally and internationally for her expertise in the areas of health benefits and other human resource compliance matters. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” recently joined Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP as the Chair of its Labor & Employment and Health Care Practices April 1, 2009.

The Managing Editor of Solutions Law Press and an Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for Employee Benefit News and other publications, Ms. Stamer is a widely published author and popular speaker. In addition to hundreds of publications on health plan and other human resources, employee benefit and internal controls issues, Ms. Stamer is the author of the “Health Plan Eligibility Toolkit.” Her work has been featured and published by the American Bar Association, BNA, SHRM, World At Work, Employee Benefit News and the American Health Lawyers Association. Her insights on human resources risk management matters have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, Managed Care Executive, HealthLeaders, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News and the Dallas Morning News.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other health plan and other employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail here, or by calling (214) 270-2402. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here, For more information and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website.

We hope that this information is useful to you. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here, For more information and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website.

You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here.

Comments Off on Stamer Moderates June 25 ABA Teleconference On When Benefits Lawyers and Other Service Providers Be Sued for Malpractice for Services to ERISA Plans | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Malpractice, Preemption, Professional Liability, Retirement Plans, Risk Management | Tagged: Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, ERISA Preemption, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Labor, Malpractice, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Vendor Contracting | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Registration Open For June 23 Dallas HR 2009 Health Plan Eligibility Update Program

June 9, 2009

Amid soaring health care costs and tightening corporate budgets, employers and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrations now also must update their group health plan eligibility and enrollment practices to comply with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Stimulus Bill”), COBRA subsidy mandates, HIPAA special enrollment rule amendments and a host of other changes to federal eligibility mandates that already have or will take effect this year. Meanwhile, employers must keep a careful watch on Congress as it considers enacting sweeping health care reforms that are likely to place more obligations on employers.

Health plan eligibility design and administration plays a critical role in controlling health benefit costs and is a leading and growing source of health plan legal risk for employers, fiduciaries and administrators. Understanding and properly managing these concerns is imperative for employers and others sponsoring or administering these programs.

Stamer Discusses Health Plan Eligibility Rules June 23

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will explain newly effective COBRA Subsidy Rules, genetic information nondiscrimination rules and other recent and impending changes to federal health plan eligibility mandates will be explained on June 23, 2009 during a 2009 Health Plan Eligibility Update briefing hosted by the Dallas Human Resources Management Association including:

Cynthia Stamer will explain to attendees what they need to know and do about:

New Stimulus Bill COBRA Subsidy Rules and other special COBRA rules that took effect on February 17
New GINA group health plan information scheduled to take place in 2009
Changes to HIPAA special enrollment and nondiscrimination rules
Implications for group health plans based on recent changes to FMLA and USERRA regulations
Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP nondiscrimination rules
Impending college student continuation mandates
And more….

Get details or register on line here or by telephoning Dallas Human Resources Management Association at 214-631-8775.

Stamer’s Health Plan Experience Extensive

Comments Off on Registration Open For June 23 Dallas HR 2009 Health Plan Eligibility Update Program | Absenteeism, ADA, COBRA, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, family leave, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, medical leave, Military Leave, Privacy, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Tax | Tagged: ADA, COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, HealthP Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Labor, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Military Leave, Occupational Injury, Premium Subsidy, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Subsidy Bill, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

102 House Members Back New Bill To Mandate Employers Give 56 Hours Paid Leave Per Year

June 9, 2009

Virtually all employers will be require to allow employees provide up to 56 hours of paid if Congress passes the “Healthy Families Act” (H.R. 2460) introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro with the support of 101 co-sponsors on May 18, 2009. Given the significant number of co-sponsors already on record as supporting the legislation, employers concerned about the proposed legislation need to act quickly to communicate their concerns to Congress.

If enacted as currently introduced, H.R. 2460 both would significantly expand the number of employers required by federal law to provide sick leave and overlay a mandate to provide paid sick leave in addition to the existing unpaid leave mandates currently applicable under the Family and Medical Leave Act to employers of more than 50 employees.

As proposed, H.R. 2460 would require all employers of 15 or more employees:

To accrue at least 1 hour of paid sick time (up to a maximum of 56 hours per calendar year) for every 30 hours worked by each employee from beginning with the first day of employment of the employee. Exempt employees generally would be assumed to work 40 hours in each workweek for purposes of calculating accrued sick leave;
Guarantee employees the right to begin using accrued paid sick time for one of the purposes qualifying for sick leave under H.R. 2460 beginning with the 60th calendar day following commencement of the employee’s employment and thereafter as he accrues additional paid sick time;
To allow employees to carry over earned but unused paid sick time from one calendar year to the next except under certain limited conditions; and
To reinstate accrued but unused leave for any employee rehired within 12 months after separating from employment and continue to recognize additional paid sick time accruals beginning with the recommencement of employment with the employer.

The purposes that H.R. 2460 would require employers to allow employees to use accrued sick leave also would be broader than those currently protected under the medical leave provisions of the FMLA. Under H.R. 2460, employees could use sick leave for any of the following absences:

An absence resulting from a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition of the employee;
An absence resulting from obtaining professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventive medical care, for the employee
In absence for the purpose of caring for a child, a parent, a spouse, or any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship (a “family member”), who has any of the conditions or needs for diagnosis or care of a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition or in the case of someone who is not a child, is otherwise in need of care; and
An absence resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the time is to seek medical attention for the employee or a family member to recover from physical or psychological injury or disability caused by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking or obtain or assist a family member in obtaining services from a victim services organization, psychological or other counseling; to seek relocation; or to take legal action, including preparing for or participating in any civil or criminal legal proceeding related to or resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

In addition, H.R. 2460 also would require covered employers:

To notify employees about their sick leave rights as dictated by H.R. 2460; and
Not to discharge or discriminating against (including retaliating against) any individual, including a job applicant, for exercising, or attempting to exercise, any right provided or for opposing any practice made unlawful by H.R. 2460;
Not to use the taking of paid sick time under H.R. 2460 as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action;
Not to count the paid sick time under a no-fault attendance policy or any other absence control policy;
Not otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under H.R. 2460; and
Not to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against (including retaliating against) any individual, including a job applicant, because such individual has filed an action, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to H.R. 2450; has given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under H.R. 2450; or has testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under H.R. 2450.

Even before the current economic downturn, many employers already viewed the unpaid leave mandates imposed by the FMLA and other laws as burdensome. The added costs and complexities of providing more paid time off under another federally imposed mandate couldn’t come at a worse time for many employers. Given the number of co-sponsors, many commentators view the proposed mandates in H.R. 2450 as likely to pass the House unless businesses act quickly to educate members of Congress about their concerns.

If you need help responding to these proposals or with other questions relating to compliance or risk management under other federal or state employment, employee benefits, compensation, or internal controls laws or regulations, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402 or via e-mail here. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” works with businesses, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, internal controls and compensation matters.

Other Information & Resources

Comments Off on 102 House Members Back New Bill To Mandate Employers Give 56 Hours Paid Leave Per Year | Absenteeism, ADA, Corporate Compliance, Employers, family leave, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, medical leave | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employer, Employers, Employment, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor, Light Duty | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Congressional Committee To Hold June 4 Hearing On Expanding Veterans’ Employment Rights

June 4, 2009

Employers will face more changes to their responsibilities to employees serving or returning from military service and their families if Congress adopts certain proposed legislation scheduled for hearings by members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs this week. Concerned businesses should communicate any concerns to members of these committees and other Congressional contacts as soon as possible.

As Congress continues to consider additional expansions to existing federal veteran re-employment rights and retraining programs, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs is holding hearings on several pending proposals. On Thursday, June 4, 2009, for instance:

The Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs plans to mark up H.R. 1211, Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act and then hold a hearing on “Meeting the Needs of Family Caregivers of Veterans” beginning at 10:30 a.m. Eastern in Room 334 Cannon House Office Building; and
The Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs plans to hear testimony about a proposal to extend existing military employment leave and reemployment rights to individuals called to full-time National Guard duty set forth in H.R. 1879, the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009, at a hearing to consider several pieces of legislation scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 4, 2009 See Hearing Schedule.

The June 4 hearings are the latest in a series of Congressional activities hearings focusing on promoting employment and health care rights for individuals serving or returning from service in the military and their families. In addition to H.R. 1879, other legislation scheduled for mark up during the Thursday afternoon hearing includes:

H.R. 1037, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2009 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a five-year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code;
H.R. 1098, Veterans’ Worker Retraining Act of 2009 would increase the amount of educational assistance payments made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to individuals pursuing an apprenticeship or on-job training under: (1) the Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program; (2) the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans educational assistance program; (3) the Survivors and Dependents educational assistance program; and (4) the Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program.
H.R. 1172, Pat Tillman Veterans’ Scholarship Initiative would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs a list of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors;
H.R. 1821, Equity for Injured Veterans Act of 2009 would increase vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits for certain veterans and provide child care reimbursement for certain rehabilitating single veterans; and
H.R. 2180, would amend title 38, United States Code, to waive housing loan fees for certain veterans with service-connected disabilities called to active service.

If you need help responding to these proposals or with other questions relating to compliance or risk management under other federal and state military leave and veterans rights laws or regulations, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402 or cstamer@cttlegal.com. Board Certified In Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, “Cindy” works with businesses, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, internal controls and compensation matters.

Comments Off on Congressional Committee To Hold June 4 Hearing On Expanding Veterans’ Employment Rights | ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Military Leave, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Uncategorized, USERRA | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor, Military Leave | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department Gears Up To Enforce COBRA Premium Subsidy Rules

May 29, 2009

Pressure is mounting for group health plans and their employer and other sponsors and administrators to complete the details required to comply with special medical coverage continuation rules (COBRA Subsidy Rules) added to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (COBRA) by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill).

The U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) recently (May 21, 2009) announced its appeal process for assistance eligible individuals to use to complain to the EBSA when they believe they wrongfully have been denied a premium subsidy for their group health plan continuation coverage in violation of the temporary modifications (COBRA Subsidy Rules) to the group health plan medical coverage continuation requirements of the COBRA Stimulus Rules. These are the expedited complaint and appeals procedures mandated under the Stimulus Bill.

The COBRA Subsidy Rules, new genetic information nondiscrimination rules and other recent and impending changes to federal health plan eligibility mandates will be explained on June 23, 2009 during a 2009 Health Plan Eligibility Update briefing hosted by the Dallas Human Resources Management Association. Get details or register here.

The Stimulus Bill allows individuals denied the premium subsidy to get expedited review by the EBSA. Under the appeals procedures announced May 21, individuals begin this review process by completing an appeals application available on line at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/COBRA/main.

Employers and group health plans and their plan administrators and plan insurers have been required to provide notifications and COBRA premium subsidies for certain former employees and their dependents that qualify as assistance eligible individuals and take other actions to comply with the COBRA Subsidy Rules since the COBRA Subsidy Rules took effective on February 17, 2009. While many employers and plan administrators undertaken some efforts to comply with these new COBRA mandates, many still have not fully completed all of the compliance arrangements.

With procedures to receive and administer appeals, the EBSA now is prepared to investigate possible violations of the Stimulus Bill COBRA rules. Accordingly, employers, plan administrators and insurers sponsoring or administering group health plan should prepare to respond to investigations that may be initiated by the filing of a request for EBSA review.

You can read details about the COBRA Subsidy Rules here.

Stimulus COBRA Rules In A Nutshell

Congress enacted the COBRA Subsidy Rules that took effect February 17, 2009 to help certain involuntarily terminated former employees and their dependents maintain COBRA coverage by requiring COBRA-covered group health plans temporarily to extend certain special COBRA treatment for “assistance eligible individuals.”

The Stimulus Bill temporarily limits the COBRA premium that a COBRA-covered group health plan can require an “assistance eligible individual” to pay for COBRA Coverage to 35% of the otherwise applicable COBRA premium (the “Reduced Premium”) for a period of up to 9 months (the “Subsidy Period”) beginning with the individual’s first period of COBRA Coverage beginning after February 17, 2009. The employer or insurer that collects this Reduced Premium must pay the remaining 65% of the COBRA premium (the “COBRA Subsidy”) for the assistance eligible individual during the Subsidy Period. However, the Stimulus Bill provides for that employer or insurer to claim a payroll tax credit equal to the amount of these COBRA Subsidy payments by complying with applicable IRS procedures.

The Stimulus COBRA Rules also requires group health plans to offer a second COBRA enrollment period to each assistance eligible individual not enrolled in COBRA Coverage on February 17, 2009. These second electors must be allowed to elect prospectively to enroll in COBRA coverage until the date that their COBRA Coverage eligibility otherwise would have ended if they had maintained COBRA Coverage since their termination.

Additionally, COBRA-covered group health plans that offer employees different plan options allow assistance eligible individuals the option to change their coverage choice from a higher cost option to a lesser cost option. Group health plan administrators also must provide certain notifications to assistance eligible individuals concerning these changes.

“Assistance Eligible Individuals”

The Stimulus COBRA Rules only apply to qualified beneficiaries whose loss of coverage resulted from the “involuntary termination of employment” of a covered employee. The Stimulus Bill definition of “assistance eligible individual” generally includes any COBRA “qualified beneficiary” who meets all of the following requirements:

ü Has a loss of coverage within the meaning of COBRA (“qualifying event”) as a result of the “involuntary termination of employment” of a covered employee from September 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009;

ü Is eligible for COBRA Coverage at any time during the period beginning September 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2009; and

ü Elects COBRA coverage when first offered or as during the additional second election period required for assistance eligible individuals not enrolled in COBRA Coverage on February 17, 2009.

IRS Notice 2009-27 defines an “involuntary termination” as “a severance from employment due to the independent exercise of the unilateral authority of the employer to terminate the employment, other than due to the employee’s implicit or explicit request, where the employee was willing and able to continue performing services” based on all the facts and circumstances.

For COBRA Premium Assistance purposes, the facts and circumstances determine whether a termination is involuntary. Thus, IRS Notice 2009-27 states that a termination designated as voluntary or as a resignation nevertheless will be considered involuntary where the facts and circumstances indicate that the employer would have terminated the employee’s services, and that the employee had knowledge that the employee would be terminated.

Notice 2009-27 identifies as examples of terminations that fall within this definition of “involuntary termination” as including the following facts and circumstances:

ü The employer’s failure to renew a contract at the time the contract expires, if the employee was willing and able to execute a new contract providing terms and conditions similar to those in the expiring contract and to continue providing the services;

ü An employee-initiated termination from employment if the termination from employment constitutes a termination for good reason due to employer action that causes a material negative change in the employment relationship for the employee;

ü An involuntary reduction of hours of employment to zero hours, such as a lay-off, furlough, or other suspension of employment, resulting in a loss of health coverage;

ü An employee’s voluntary termination of employment in response to an employer imposed reduction of hours of employment where the reduction in hours is a material negative change in the employment relationship for the employee;

ü An employer’s action to end an individual’s employment while the individual is absent from work due to illness or disability (but not mere absence from work due to illness or disability before the employer has taken action to end the individual’s employment);

ü A termination designated on account of “retirement” if the facts and circumstances indicate that, absent retirement, the employer would have terminated the employee’s services, and the employee had knowledge that the employee would be terminated;

ü The covered employee resigned as the result of a material change in the geographic location of employment for the employee;

ü A lockout initiated by an employer but not a work stoppage as the result of a strike initiated by employees or their representatives; and

ü A termination elected by the employee in return for a severance package (a “buy-out”) where the employer indicates that after the offer period for the severance package, a certain number of remaining employees in the employee’s group will be terminated

Notice 2009-27 also clarifies that the termination of employment giving rise to the loss of group health plan coverage and the loss of the group health plan coverage both must occur between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 in order for an individual to qualify as an assistance eligible individual. Consequently, if the involuntary termination occurs before September 1, 2008, but the loss of coverage resulting in eligibility for COBRA Coverage occurs after September 1, 2008 (but no later than December 31, 2009), Notice 2009-28 states that the individual will not qualify as an assistance eligible individual. Likewise, where an individual’s involuntary termination occurs by December 31, 2009, but the loss of coverage resulting in eligibility for COBRA Coverage occurs after December 31, 2009, the qualified beneficiary will not qualify as an assistance eligible individual for purposes of the Subsidy COBRA Rules. According to Notice 2009-27, where the involuntary termination of employment and loss of coverage as a covered employee or dependent occur between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, the election of COBRA Coverage need not occur by December 31, 2009.

Many group health plans are drafted to provide that the date that employee or dependent coverage ends or changes as a result of an employment loss is the last day of the month or some other date after the actual date of the employment termination. Under group health plans where the loss of coverage due to the qualifying event is delayed, Notice 2009-27 also reminds employers and plan administrators of the need to focus on how group health plan provisions, separation agreements and other related documents define when the loss of coverage occurs under a group health plan when applying these rules.

For purposes of COBRA, Notice 2009-27 states that when a loss of coverage under a group health plan occurs under these circumstances depends on how the group health plan treats the provision of health coverage between the date of the employment loss and the date of the resulting loss of employee and/or dependent coverage. If the plan treats the provision of health coverage as deferring the loss of coverage, Notice 2009-27 indicates the loss of coverage generally occurs when the individual ceases to be entitled to employee or dependent coverage on the same terms and conditions as would have applied had he not experienced the qualifying event. However, if the plan treats the continued provision of health coverage from the termination date until employee or dependent coverage later ends as a result as reducing the period of required COBRA Coverage, then the loss of coverage occurs on the termination date or other later date. Appropriate drafting is important to support the desired characterization.

Calculation of 35% of COBRA Premium

Based on the guidance in Notice 2009-27, many employers will want to terminate severance or other arrangements under which former employees are allowed to pay less than the maximum COBRA premium for some period of time. According to Notice 2009-29,.the premium used to determine the 35% share that must be paid by (or on behalf of) an assistance eligible individual is the cost that would be charged to the assistance eligible individual for COBRA Coverage if the individual were not an assistance eligible individual. If absent the Stimulus COBRA Rules, the group health plan would require the assistance eligible individual to pay 102% of the “applicable premium” for continuation coverage, i.e., generally the maximum permitted, the Reduced Premium equals 35% of the 102% of the applicable premium. As no good deed goes unpunished, however, if the premium the group health plan would charge the assistance eligible individual is less than the maximum allowable COBRA premium, the Reduced Premium will be 35% of that lesser amount. In determining whether an assistance eligible individual has paid 35% of the premium, payments on behalf of the individual by another person (other than the employer with respect to which the involuntary termination occurred) are taken into account.

Coverage Eligible For Premium Reduction

Notice 2009-27 also provides guidance about what types of group health plan coverage qualifies for premium reduction. According to the Notice, the premium reduction is available for COBRA Coverage of any group health plan, except a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) under section 106(c) offered under a section 125 cafeteria plan. This includes vision-only or dental-only plans, “mini-med plans” and certain health reimbursement accounts (HRAs).

The Notice 2009-27 distinguishes exempted FSAs from covered health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) for purposes of these rules. According to Notice 2009-27, while an HRA may qualify as an FSA under section 106(c), the exclusion of FSAs from the premium reduction is limited to FSAs provided through a section 125 cafeteria plan, which would not include an HRA.

Notice 2009-27 also indicates that retiree coverage can qualify for the premium reduction where the retiree coverage does not differ from the coverage made available to similarly situated active employees.

Premium Reduction Period Duration

Notice 2009-27 also provides guidance about when periods of coverage and the Premium Reduction Period begin and end. Under the Stimulus COBRA Rules, the premium reduction applies as of the first period of coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009 (February 17, 2009) for which the assistance eligible individual is eligible to pay only 35% of the premium and be treated as having made full payment. For this purpose, a period of coverage is a monthly or shorter period with respect to which premiums are charged by the plan with respect to such coverage.

According to Notice 2009-27, when the Premium Reduction Period begins for an assistance eligible individual depends on the period the plan charges COBRA premiums. Where a group health plan requires an individual who loses coverage other than on the last day of the month who wishes to enroll in COBRA Coverage to pay a pro-rata portion of the monthly premium, Notice 2009-27 states the first period of coverage to which the premium reduction applies for an assistance eligible individual who loses coverage after February 17, 2009 generally is the individual’s first partial month of coverage. A different rule applies when the assistance eligible individual elects COBRA Coverage under the second election period required by the Stimulus Bill Rules, however. Whether a plan requires COBRA Coverage be paid for based on a calendar month or pro rata basis, March 1, 2009 is the beginning of the first period of coverage within the Premium Reduction Period for any assistance eligible individual enrolling during the second enrollment period and the Reduced Premium only applies to that individual for COBRA Coverage from March 1, 2009 through the end of his otherwise applicable Premium Reduction Period.

End Of Premium Reduction Period

An assistance eligible individual ceases to qualify for the premium reduction on the earliest of:

ü The first date the assistance eligible individual becomes eligible for other group health plan coverage (with certain exceptions) or Medicare coverage,

ü The date that is nine months after the first day of the first month for which the Stimulus Bill premium reduction provisions apply to the individual, or

ü The date the individual ceases to be eligible for COBRA Coverage.

Notice 2009-27 confirms that the Premium Reduction Period of an assistance eligible individual ends on the first date he becomes eligible for other group health plan coverage or Medicare effect even if the assistance eligible individual does not enroll in the other group health plan coverage.

According to Notice 2009-27, whether an offer of retiree coverage that is not COBRA Coverage simultaneously with the offering of COBRA Coverage ends the Premium Reduction Period depends on whether the retiree coverage is offered under the same group health plan as the COBRA Coverage or under a different group health plan. If offered under the same group health plan, the offer of the retiree coverage has no effect on the Premium Reduction Period. If offered under a different group health plan, the offer of retiree coverage that is not COBRA coverage ends the Premium Reduction Period. However Notice 2009-27, however, If offered to someone whose eligibility for COBRA coverage arose between September 1, 2008 and February 17, 2009, the offer render the individual ineligible for the premium reduction only if the period the individual is given for enrolling in the retiree coverage extends to at least February 17, 2009.

Notice 2009-27 also addresses when eligibility for coverage under an HRA ends eligibility for the premium reduction. It states that becoming eligible for HRA coverage ends the Premium Reduction Period unless the HRA qualifies as an FSA under section 106(c). Under section 106(c), an FSA is health coverage under which the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant of the coverage is less than 500% of the value of the coverage. For this purpose, the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available is generally the balance of the HRA and the value of the HRA coverage would generally be the applicable premium for COBRA continuation of the HRA coverage.

Notice 2009-27 also clarifies that the Premium Reduction Period of an eligible individual may extend beyond December 31, 2009 for individuals who qualify as assistance eligible individuals on or before December 31, 2009. For example, the Premium Reduction Period of an assistance eligible individual whose Premium Reduction Period begins on December 1, 2009 could extent until August 31, 2010, assuming the individual does not become eligible for other group health plan coverage or Medicare or lose eligibility for COBRA Coverage before that date.

With regard to the effect of Medicare eligibility on an assistance eligible individual’s Premium reduction Period, Notice 2009-27 indicates that an individual currently enrolled in Medicare when the involuntary termination of employment occurs is ineligible for premium reduction, even though they may be eligible to elect COBRA continuation coverage by paying the otherwise applicable unreduced COBRA premium.

Dealing With Assistance Eligible Individuals Not Eligible For Premium Subsidy Based On Eligibility For Other Group Coverage

Under the Stimulus Bill, assistance eligible individuals are required to provide notification and resume paying the unreduced usual COBRA premium when they become eligible for Medicare or other group health coverage. Where an assistance eligible individual fails to provide the required notice and continues to take advantage of the premium reduction after his Premium Reduction Period terminates due to his becoming eligible for other coverage or Medicare, Notice 2009-27 states the employer is not responsible for recovering the additional premium or otherwise recouping the COBRA premium.

Dealing With Assistance Eligible Individuals Subject to Phase Out of Premium Subsidy Eligibility Based On Income

The Stimulus COBRA Rules include tax provisions designed phase out the COBRA Subsidy for certain highly compensated employees by taxing a portion of those amounts. Notice 2009-7 discusses the mechanics through which highly compensated employees can avoid this tax liability by electing to waive the Premium Reduction and Premium Subsidy.

An assistance eligible individual who wants to make a permanent election to waive the right to the premium reduction makes the election by providing a signed and dated notification (including a reference to “permanent waiver”) to the employer or other person who is reimbursed for the premium reduction under the COBRA Premium Subsidy provisions of Code § 6432. No separate additional notification to any government agency. If an assistance eligible individual makes the permanent election to waive the right to the premium reduction, the individual may not later reverse the election and may not receive the premium reduction for any future period of COBRA Coverage in 2009 or 2010, regardless of modified adjusted gross income in those years.

Notice 2009-27 makes clear that these rules don’t allow employers to deny the Reduced Premium to these assistance eligible individuals. According to Notice 2009-27, “Even if an assistance eligible individual’s income is high enough that the recapture of the premium reduction would apply, COBRA Coverage must be provided upon payment of 35% of the premium unless the individual has notified the plan that the individual has elected the permanent waiver of the premium reduction (or the period for the premium reduction has ended).

Second COBRA Election Period

The Stimulus Bill also requires group health plans to offer a second election period to assistance eligible individuals not enrolled in COBRA Coverage on February 17, 2009 whose employment terminated between September 1, 2008 and February 16, 2009. Notice 2009-27 confirms that any individual (including a dependent) who did not have an election of COBRA Coverage in effect on February 17, 2009, but who would have been an assistance eligible individual if the election were in effect must be offered this second election period. For those electing COBRA Coverage during this second election period, the resulting coverage begins with the first period of COBRA continuation coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009. Notice 2009-27 confirms that this extended election period is available for all individuals who are qualified beneficiaries as the result of an involuntary termination during the period from September 1, 2008, through February 17, 2009, even if they still have an open COBRA election period as of February 17, 2009. If these individuals elect COBRA under their original COBRA election period, COBRA coverage is retroactive to their loss of coverage and the premium reduction does not apply to the periods of coverage prior to the first period of coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009 (generally, periods of coverage before March 2009 for plans with monthly coverage periods).

If, as a result of the extended election period, an assistance eligible individual becomes eligible for COBRA Coverage under a group health plan that requires payment of COBRA premiums on a calendar month basis, the individual’s first period of coverage will begin on March 1 and the Reduced Premium only applies prospectively from that date. According to Notice 2009-27, this does not change even if the plan otherwise requires individuals who lose coverage before the last day of the month and who wish to enroll in COBRA continuation coverage to pay a pro-rata portion of the monthly premium for the first partial month of coverage.

In contrast, where a group health plan determines the required COBRA premiums based on the loss of coverage, Notice 2009-27 states that the first period of coverage begins on the first day after the loss of coverage and ends on the day of the following month corresponding to the day of the loss of coverage. For example, if the last day of coverage was October 3, 2008, the period of coverage runs from the fourth of the month to the third of the following month, and thus the first period of coverage on or after February 17, 2009, is the period March 4, 2009, through April 3, 2009.

Notice 2009-27 also discusses the operation of these rules as applied to certain HRAs

Who Pays The Premium Subsidy & Claims The Payroll Tax Credit

In previously issued guidance, the IRS indicated that between the sponsoring employer or union and a group insurer, the party that collects the Reduced Premium bears responsibility to pay the 65% Premium Subsidy then claiming the payroll tax credit under the Stimulus COBRA Rules. According to Notice 2009-27, if the insurer and the employer of insured, single employer group health plan have agreed that the insurer will collect the premiums directly from the qualified beneficiaries, the insurer must treat an assistance eligible individual paying 35 of the premium as having paid the full premium, even before the employer pays the insurer the remaining 65%. If the insurer fails to treat a 35% payment by an assistance eligible individual as a payment of the full premium, the insurer may be liable for the excise tax under Code § 4980B(e)(1)(B), which applies to persons responsible for administering or providing benefits under the plan and whose act or failure to act caused (in whole or in part) the failure, if the person assumed responsibility for the performance of the act to which the failure relates.

For More Information or Assistance

If your organization needs help responding to the COBRA Subsidy Rules or other group health plan or other employee benefit or human resources matters, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Ms. Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at e-mail, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the Curran Tomko Tarski Website or Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can register to receive future updates and information about upcoming programs, access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources at CynthiaStamer.com For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about developments on these and other human resources and employee benefits concerns, please be sure that we have your Currant contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at CynthiaStamer.com. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please send a reply e-mail with “Remove” in the subject line to support@SolutionsLawyer.net. You also can register to participate in the distribution of these updates by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Blog here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Labor Department Gears Up To Enforce COBRA Premium Subsidy Rules | COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls | Tagged: COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Premium Subsidy, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Subsidy Bill, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell Senate Committee Today Not To Mess Up Health Benefits

May 27, 2009

Today is the last day that individuals and businesses concerned about health care can provide feedback to Congress on health care reform proposals on the fast track for adoption by Congress and have their opinion included in the official hearing record of the May 12, 2009 Senate Finance Committee Hearing on “Financing Comprehensive Health Care Reform.” Start speaking up today and keep speaking out until you are heard.

Senate health care reform leaders have announced their intention to have the Senate vote and pass health care reform legislation that would drastically change the U.S. health care and health insurance system during June. Individuals and businesses concerned about Congressional proposals to private health benefits with federal government benefits, to tax individuals and businesses on health benefits, and to make other radical changes in our health care programs should e-mail their concerns to Congress today. Recent statements by Congressional leaders and President Obama indicate that the intend to act quickly to pass major health care reforms within the next few months, beginning with action by the Senate in June.

The Senate Finance Committee discussed the proposed changes during a “Roundtable Discussion” hearing on May 12, 2009. Among the changes that this hearing reflects to be under serious consideration by Congress are proposals:

To tax individuals on health benefits and/or coverage
Reduce or eliminate employer tax benefits for providing health coverage
Mandate individuals and/or employees pay government mandated health insurance premiums
Replace existing employer and private health insurance programs with government run or mandated benefit programs
Involve the federal government in deciding who and when Americans get care
Establish other burdensome federal requirements and regulations on health benefits and health care providers.

You can review or listen to the testimony and learn more about what Congress plans to do to your and your employees’ health benefits here.

If you or others that you know are concerned about all or any of these proposals, we urge you to share your feedback TODAY as follows and staying involved as Congress moves to act:

E-mail the Health Care Reform Leadership of the Senate Finance Committee at Health_reform@finance_dem.senate.gov
E-mail each member of the Senate Finance Committee at http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Call (202) 224-4515 and share your views with Congressional Staffers Erin Shields (Baucus) and Jill Gerber (Grassley), Committee on Finance, 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6200
Tell your Senators and Representatives you oppose Congressional plans to fast track health care reform the way Congress enacted the Stimulus Bill
Tell your Senators and Representatives you will support members of Congress who vote responsibly on health care reform
Tell your Senators and Representatives in Congress and political party leaders you will work to defeat members and candidates that advocate these and other irresponsible health care reform legisltation
Carry through on your promises
Keep speaking out until you are heard and Congress gets the message.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an attorney, author and health care advocate known for her work and writings nationally and internationally on health care and coverage policy and legal matters . If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or communicating its concerns about this legislation or other health care and insurance, employment or employee benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the http://www.cttlegal.com.

Other Information & Resources

Comments Off on Tell Senate Committee Today Not To Mess Up Health Benefits | Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Public Policy, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: Employer, Employers, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Labor, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Risk Management, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC GIVES EMPLOYERS LIMITED EMPLOYER GUIDANCE ABOUT ADA ISSUES IN SWINE FLU RESPONSE

May 13, 2009

Recent concerns over the H1N1 Swine Flu (swine flu) pandemic and warnings of a possible resurgence of the swine flu pandemic or some other pandemic in the future is forcing many employers to question when concerns that an employee suffers from a contagious disease can justify the employer making inquires about the health of an employee or the exclusion of the employee from the workplace. New guidance set forth in the “U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ADA-Compliant Employer Preparedness For the H1N1 Flu Virus” (Guidance) published by the U.S. Department of Labor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 4, 2009 provides some insights for employers about the EEOC’s perspective on these questions.

The Guidance details the EEOC’s answers to certain basic questions about when the EEOC views certain workplace preparation strategies for responding to the 2009 flu virus as compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers considering updates to their current pandemic and infectious disease response plans are cautioned that in addition to potential ADA exposures, practices for periods after November 21, 2009 also generally must be tailored to comply with new restrictions on employer’s collection of and discrimination based on genetic information based on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Proposed regulations interpreting the employment provisions of GINA published by the EEOC in March 2009 do not specifically address the implications of GINA on employer planning or response to pandemic concerns.

ADA Concerns Apply To Employers Planning For & Applying Swine Flu Response

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects applicants and employees from disability discrimination. Among other things, the ADA regulates when and how employers may require a medical examination or request disability-related information from applicants and employees, regardless of whether the individual has a disability. The Guidance confirms that the EEOC views this requirement as affecting when and how employers may request health information from applicants and employees regarding H1N1 flu virus.

Effective January 1, 2009, Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) to change the way that the ADA’s statutory definition of the term “disability” historically has been interpreted by certain courts. The ADAAA amendments generally are intended and expected to make it easier for certain individuals to qualify as disabled under the ADA. While the Guidance announces that the EEOC intends to revise its ADA regulations to reflect the broader group of persons protected as disabled under the ADAAA amendments, it also indicates that the EEOC does not perceive that the ADAAA changes the actions prohibited by the ADA as they relate to common pandemic planning and response activities. Consequently, the Guidance states that the EEOC views the guidance in “Disability-Related Inquiries & Medical Examinations of Employees Under the ADA” published by the EEOC in 2000 and its “Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions & Medical Examinations” published in 1995 as setting forth the governing rules for medical testing, inquires and other pandemic response planning under the ADA.

Under the ADA, an employer’s ability to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations is analyzed in three stages: pre-offer, post-offer, and employment.

At the first stage (prior to an offer of employment), the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even if they are related to the job.
At the second stage (after an applicant is given a conditional job offer, but before s/he starts work), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, regardless of whether they are related to the job, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same job category.
At the third stage (after employment begins), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
The ADA requires employers to treat any medical information obtained from a disability-related inquiry or medical examination (including medical information from voluntary health or wellness programs), as well as any medical information voluntarily disclosed by an employee, as a confidential medical record. Employers may share such information only in limited circumstances with supervisors, managers, first aid and safety personnel, and government officials investigating compliance with the ADA.

Employers deviating from these requirements when administering their pandemic planning or response risk disability discrimination liability under the ADA unless they otherwise can defend their action under one of the exceptions to the ADA’s disability discrimination prohibitions. When making post-offer inquiries or requiring post offer examinations or imposing other conditions for safety reasons, the Guidance and EEOC in unofficial discussions have emphasized the importance of the employer’s ability to demonstrate the job or safety relevance of the medical inquiry or examination based on credible scientific evidence such as the latest scientific evidence available from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Other than emphasizing the importance of acting appropriately in response to credible scientific evidence and pointing to preexisting guidance, the Guidance does not extensively address with specificity the circumstances under which the EEOC will view any particular action taken by an employer as defensible under the safety or other exceptions of the ADA. Likewise, the Guidance does not discuss in any details the conditions, if any, under which the EEOC would view suffering, a history of suffering or association with or exposure to swine flu as qualifying an individual as disabled or perceived to be disabled for purposes of the ADA. Consequently, employer must rely on other less specifically tailored guidance for purposes of assessing the defensibility of a proposed action on these grounds.

Planning for Absenteeism Under ADA

When planning for a possible pandemic, employers must be careful about when and how they ask employees about factors, including chronic medical conditions that may cause them to miss work in the event of a pandemic. According to the Guidance, an employer may survey its workforce to gather personal information needed for pandemic preparation if the employer asks broad questions that are not limited to disability-related inquiries. An inquiry would not be disability-related if it identified non-medical reasons for absence during a pandemic (e.g., mandatory school closures or curtailed public transportation) on an equal footing with medical reasons (e.g., chronic illnesses that weaken immunity). The Guidance includes a sample of what the EEOC views as ADA-compliant survey that could be given to all employees before a pandemic.

The Guidance also indicates that where appropriate safeguards are applied to comply with the ADA, it also may be appropriate for an employer under certain limited circumstances, to require entering employees to have a medical test post-offer to determine their exposure to the influenza virus. According to the EEOC, the ADA permits an employer to require entering employees to undergo a job relevant medical examination after making a conditional offer of employment but before the individual starts work, if all entering employees in the same job category must undergo such an examination. Thus, the Guidance reflects that the requirement by an employer as part of its pandemic influenza preparedness plan that all entering employees in the same job categories undergo the same post offer medical testing for the virus in accordance with recommendations by the WHO and the CDC in response to a new influenza virus may be ADA-compliant.

Infection Control in the Workplace Under the ADA

The Guidance also discusses the EEOC’s perceptions about the ADA implications of employer use of certain infection control practices in the workplace during a pandemic provided that the requirements are applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion consistent with the ADA. For instance, the Guidance states that employers generally may apply with following infection control practices without implicating the ADA:

Require all employees to comply with certain infection control practices, such as regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and tissue usage and disposal without implicating the ADA;
May require employees to wear personal protective equipment provided that where an employee with a disability needs a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (e.g., non-latex gloves, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), employer provides these accommodations absent undue hardship;
Encourage or require employees to telework as an infection-control strategy, based on timely information from public health authorities about pandemic conditions or offer telework as a possible reasonable accommodation.

In all cases, of course, the Guidance cautions that employers must not single out employees either to telework or to continue reporting to the workplace on a basis prohibited by the ADA or any of the other federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws.

Impending GINA Rules

As signed into law, GINA amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of “genetic information” by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, joint labor-management committees, group health plans and insurers and their agents. GINA’s group health plan restrictions are scheduled to take effect May 21, 2009. The employment related genetic testing rules of GINA take affect November 21, 2009. Employers and other covered entities will need to carefully review and timely update their pandemic and other infectious disease response practices as well as their group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies in light of these new federal rules.

Although EEOC has not finalized its implementing regulations for GINA yet, employers should anticipate that GINA will impact their pandemic and other related practices. The implications of GINA for employers and other entities covered by its provisions because of its broad definition of genetic information.

Under GINA, “genetic information” is defined to mean with respect to any individual, information about:

Such individual’s genetic tests;
The genetic tests of family members of such individual; and
The manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.

GINA also specifies that any reference to genetic information concerning an individual or family member includes genetic information of a fetus carried by a pregnant woman and an embryo legally held by an individual or family member utilizing an assisted reproductive technology.

Pending issuance of final regulatory guidance, Gina’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” raises potential challenges for a broad range of wellness and safety, leave, and other employment and benefit practices, particularly as apparently will reach a broader range of conditions than those currently protected under the disability discrimination prohibitions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Depending on the contemplated inquiry or practice, certain inquiries or actions intended for use as part of an employer’s pandemic preparedness or response activities could fall within the scope of GINA’s protections. For this reason, employers also should consider the potential treatment of a proposed pandemic preparation or response activity intended to be applied after GINA takes effect in light of GINA. Additionally, employers also should consider the risk that information collected under existing or previously applied pandemic or other infectious disease prevention and response activities might qualify for additional protection when GINA takes effect in November, 2009.

Other Resources

“Planning for the Pandemic” authored available at http://www.cynthiastamer.com/documents/speeches/20070530%20Pan%20Flu%20Workplace%20Privacy%20Issues%20Final%20Merged.pdf;
“Dealing With Leave & Other Workplace Fallout of Swine Flu Pandemic Response” available at http://cttlegalhr.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/dealing-with-leave-other-workplace-fallout-of-swine-flu-pandemic-response; and
“Workforce Swine Flu Pandemic Survival Preparedness Tips For Business” available at http://cttlegalhr.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/hello-world.

Comments Off on EEOC GIVES EMPLOYERS LIMITED EMPLOYER GUIDANCE ABOUT ADA ISSUES IN SWINE FLU RESPONSE | Absenteeism, ADA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Pandemic, Privacy, Risk Management, Swine Flu, Telecommuting | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, ERISA, genetic testing, GINA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Labor, Light Duty, Medical Coverage, Pandemic, Risk Management, Swine Flu, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Mitigating Workplace Fallout of Pandemic Response

May 5, 2009

As the U.S. rushes to try to contain the spread of the swine influenza A (H1N1) virus infection (swine flu), businesses increasingly are facing employee leave requests and other employment and operational disruptions plans caused by school, day care or other closures and other business disruptions resulting from efforts to contain the disease while also working to take appropriate steps to prevent the spread of the disease within their own organizations.

Regardless of how deadly it ultimately proves to be, the pandemic proportion of the swine flu outbreak now ensures that most U.S. businesses will experience some disruption in operations as a result of the epidemic and efforts to contain it.

According to officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, 36 states had reported a total of 236 confirmed cases of swine flu and more cases are expected. That number includes the first U.S. swine flu fatality: a 22-month-old child from Mexico who died of the illness at a Houston, Texas hospital while visiting the United States last week. States currently hardest hit include New York (73 cases), Texas (41 cases), California (30 cases), Delaware (20 cases) and Arizona (17 cases). In the near future, however, CDC officials anticipate confirmed cases in all 50 states.

CDC officials and other experts continue to emphasize that the success of efforts to prevent the unnecessary spread of the disease depends largely on good health habits, limiting exposure to the virus and prompt diagnosis and treatment of afflicted persons. Employers can help reduce the risk that members of their workforce and their families will catch the virus by promoting good health habits and encouraging workers and their families to stay home and seek prompt treatment in the event of an illness. Simultaneously planning for and dealing with absences and other staffing challenges result from school, day care and other closings prevents a greater challenge for many employers, however.

Easy Preventive Safeguards

While the CDC says getting employees and their families to get a flu shot remains the best defense against a flu outbreak, it also says getting employees and family members to consistently practice good health habits like covering a cough and washing hands also is another important key to prevent the spread of germs and prevent the spread of respiratory illnesses like the flu. To help promote health habits within their workforce, many businesses may want to download and circulate to employees and families the free resources published by the CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/habits.htm. These and other resources make clear that Employers should encourage employees and their families to practice good health habits by telling employees and their families to take the following steps:

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

Many businesses are promoting these and other conducts that help prevent the spread of disease by sharing educational materials such as the growing range of free materials provided by the CDC and others available at the government sponsored website, http://www.pandemicflu.gov. For instance, business can access and download free copies of the following publications at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/habits.htm:

Cover Your Cough
Be a Germ Stopper: Healthy Habits Keep You Well
Flu Prevention Toolkit: Real People. Real Solutions
Stopping the Spread of Germs at Home, Work & School

Dealing With Lost Time & Productivity Challenges

Businesses also should begin preparing backup staffing and production strategies to prepare for disruptions likely to result if a significant outbreak occurs. Whether or not the disease afflicts any of its workers, businesses can anticipate the swine flu outbreak will impact their operations -either as a result of occurrences affecting their own or other businesses or from workflow disruptions resulting from safeguards that the business or other businesses implement to minimize swine flu risks for its workforce or its customers.

For many employers, however, planning for and dealing with requests for time off or other workplace disruptions resulting from pandemic containment efforts presents special challenges. While most employers have well established policies and procedures for providing medical leave to employees during periods of their own or a family member’s illness under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or otherwise, many employers are experiencing difficulty in responding to leave requests of healthy employees necessitated by school or day care closings, suspected exposures, or other pandemic response disruptions.

Certainly, whether or not legally mandated, the CDC and other official advisories make clear that sick employees should not be in the workplace. Employers of course must provide medical leave as required by the FMLA or other similar state laws as well as any contractually agreed to leave. To better insulate their workforce against potential exposure to the virus, however, many employers also may wish consider temporarily modifying existing leave or other work policies with an eye to better defending their workforce against a major outbreak. In this respect, employers need to consider both how to respond to the present wave of the virus and to plan for the possible need to respond to another potentially stronger outbreak of the swine flu virus that the CDC and other experts caution likely may arise in the Fall or Winter.

As part of their efforts to insulate their workplaces against exposure to the virus, employers generally should discourage workers from coming to work if they or a family member are experiencing symptoms or have been exposed to the virus. For this reason, businesses generally evaluate workplace policies or practices that may pressure or encourage employees with swine flu or any other contagious disease to report to work. Employers should consider whether the potential risks make advisable adjustments to their current attendance, telecommuting, leave and paid time off and other policies.

In light of the current situation, many businesses may want to consider temporarily adjust their leave, telecommuting and other policies in light of the impending health risk. For instance, recognizing that the decision to close a school or child care facility in response to a known or suspected infection seeks to minimize the spread of the disease through exposure to other then undiagnosed cases, businesses generally should think twice about allowing employees to bring these potentially exposed children into the workplace. Instead, employers may wish to consider being more flexible in allowing employees to work from home or take leave to care for children whose schools or child care facilities are closed due to concerns about possible exposure to reduce the risk of creating unnecessary exposure in their workplace.

To help minimize financial pressures on workers to report to work when they may be ill or exposed to the virus, many employers also may want to consider providing or offering short-term disability insurance, expanding the availability of paid or unpaid leave or both.

Regardless of the specific choices a particular business makes, businesses need to take appropriate steps to document, implement, and communicate their decisions. If considering allowing or requiring employees to work from home, employers need to implement appropriate safeguards to monitor and manage employee performance, and to protect the employer’s ability to comply with applicable wage and hour, worker’s compensation, safety, privacy and other legal and operational requirements. They also should review and update family and medical leave act and other sick leave policies, group health plan medical coverage continuation rules and notices and other associated policies and plans for compliance with existing regulatory requirements, which have been subject to a range of statutory and regulatory amendments in recent years.

If considering allowing or requiring employees to work from home, for instance, employers need to implement appropriate safeguards to monitor and manage employee performance, and to protect the employer’s ability to comply with applicable wage and hour, worker’s compensation, safety, privacy and other legal and operational requirements. They also should review and update family and medical leave act and other sick leave policies, group health plan medical coverage continuation rules and notices and other associated policies and plans for compliance with existing regulatory requirements, which have been subject to a range of statutory and regulatory amendments in recent years.

In light of the growing responsibilities and exposures of business to medical privacy and disability liabilities associated with knowledge, collection, protection and use of information about the health and medical conditions of workers and their families, businesses also should review and update their procedures regarding the use, collection, disclosure, and protection of this and other sensitive information. Businesses, health care providers, schools, government agencies and others concerned about preparing to cope with pandemic or other infectious disease challenges also may want to review the publication “Planning for the Pandemic” authored by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer available at http://www.cynthiastamer.com/documents/speeches/20070530%20Pan%20Flu%20Workplace%20Privacy%20Issues%20Final%20Merged.pdf. Schools, health care organizations, restaurants and other businesses whose operations involve significant interaction with the public also may need to take special precautions. These and other businesses may want to consult the special resources posted at http://www.pandemicflu.gov/health/index.html.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. Ms. Stamer in particular has worked extensively with health care providers, government officials, and businesses to plan for and deal with pandemic and other absence, disease management and disaster preparedness concerns. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402, or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the http://www.cttlegal.com.

Comments Off on Mitigating Workplace Fallout of Pandemic Response | Absenteeism, COBRA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Agreement, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Pandemic, Privacy, Swine Flu, Telecommuting, Wellness | Tagged: Absenteeism, ADA, COBRA, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Agreements, Family Leave, Health, Health Plans, Human Resources, Labor, Leave, Medical Coverage, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Paid Time Off, Pandemic, Privacy, PTO, Risk Management, Swine Flu, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers

April 15, 2009

U.S. employers should audit existing wage and hour practices and documentation and take other steps to defend against the heightened emphasis on enforcement of federal wage overtime, minimum wage, child labor and other wage and hour laws announced by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD). In a March 5, 2009 WHD Press Release, recently appointed Obama Administration Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced that WHD is adding 250 new field investigators and taking other steps to strengthen its enforcement of federal minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws. In her March 5, 2009 Press Release, Secretary Solis stated, “The addition of these 250 new field investigators, a staff increase of more than a third, will reinvigorate the work of this important agency, which has suffered a loss of experienced personnel over the last several years.”

The announced expansion of staffing comes in part in response to two reports made to Congress by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) over the past year, which were highly critical of the enforcement activities of the WHD under the Bush Administration. In a 2009 GAO Report To Congress released March 25, 2009, the GAO reported that a recent GAO audit of WHD enforcement found that sluggish response times, a poor complaint intake process, and failed conciliation attempts, among other problems left workers vulnerable to wage theft. The 2009 Report followed up on a 2008 GAO Report To Congress that case studies showed that WHD inadequately investigated minimum wage and overtime complaints by inappropriately rejecting complaints based on incorrect information provided by employers, failing to make adequate attempts to locate employers, not thoroughly investigating and resolving complaints, and delaying initiating investigations for over a year and then dropping the complaint because the statute of limitations for assessing back wages was close to expiring.

The continuing emphasis of the DOL upon FLSA enforcement, coupled with the growth in FLSA enforcement actions by private plaintiffs, provides an important warning to employers of low wage workers specifically, as well as employers generally, of the importance of being prepared to defend their worker classification and overtime practices against DOL and/or private litigant investigations. When it updated its regulations governing the classification of workers as exempt versus non-exempt under the FLSA in 2004, the DOL urged employers to review and update their worker classification and overtime practices to comply with the updated regulations. At the same time, the DOL announced its intention to vigorously enforce its FLSA regulations against employers failing to adhere to these updated rules. Despite these widely publicized compliance efforts, DOL studies of employer compliance with overtime rules continue to reflect that 50 percent of employers are not in compliance with these mandates. Therefore, in addition to adjusting existing rates of pay to comply with the increased minimum wage, employers also should:

Audit overtime pay practices to verify they comply with applicable federal and state requirements,

Review workers classified as exempt employees and/or non-employee contractors in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws to assess the sustainability of these characterizations against a legal challenge; and

Audit the adequacy of current practices for tracking and documenting time worked by non-exempt workers in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws.

Employers are cautioned to keep in mind that employers generally bear the burden of proving that their existing worker classification, wage and overtime practices meet or exceed the minimum standards imposed by the FLSA and any applicable state wage and hour law.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, and other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting businesses to audit, administer and defend minimum wage, overtime and other wage and hour practices under federal and state wage and hour laws, as well as with other labor and employment, employee benefits and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, , please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curren Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curren Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see www.cttlegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers | Corporate Compliance, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill, Wage & Hour | Tagged: Compensation, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Human Resources, Labor, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Blogroll

Solutions Law

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update