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

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 you may have missed include:

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

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Prepares To Broaden “Disability” Definition Under ADA Regulations

September 18, 2009

Proposed regulations modifying existing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rules concerning the conditions that an individual must meet to qualify as having a “disability” for purposes of claiming protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are expected to be published in the Federal Register the week of September 21, 2009.

On September 16, 2009, the EEOC announced that Commissioners had approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Proposed Regulation) which would make several significant changes to the its current regulatory definition of the term “disability” for purposes of the ADA.  The EEOC announced this week that the Proposed Regulation is expected to be published in the Federal Register the week of September 21, 2009.  Interested persons will have 60 days from the publication date of the Proposed Rule to submit comments to the EEOC concerning the Proposed Regulation.

Why The Change?

The proposed changes are intended to respond to amendments enacted under the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which took effect January 1, 2009.   Enacted on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability” in the ADA as well as directed EEOC to amend its existing ADA regulation to reflect the changes made by the ADAAA.

The ADAAA amendments to the ADA definition of “disability” make it easier for certain individuals alleging employment discrimination based on disability to establish disability status under the ADA’s definition of “disability” by overruling various Supreme Court holdings and portions of EEOC’s existing ADA regulations considered by many members of Congress as too narrowly applying the definition of “disability.”  

While the ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect on January 1, 2009 change the required interpretation of these terms.  Under the ADAAA, “major life activities” now include both many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating), as well as major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”). 

In addition to these clarifications, the ADAAA also broadens the reach of the ADA’s definition of “disability” in various other respects.  For instance, the ADAAA:

  • Asserts that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
    Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
  • Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
  • Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

As part of the required implementation of its provisions, the ADAAA also mandates that the EEOC revise that portion of its existing regulations defining the term “substantially limits” and “major life activities” to comport to the changes enacted by the ADAAA.  In response to this statutory direction, the Proposed Regulation to be published next week proposes changes both to the ADA regulation itself and to the Interpretive Guidance (also known as the Appendix) that was published at the same time as the original ADA regulation. See 29 C.F.R. section 1630.  The Appendix provides further explanation from the EEOC on how its ADA regulations should be interpreted.

About The New Guidance and Proposed Regulations

In anticipation of the publication of the Proposed Regulation, the EEOC on September 16, 2009 sought to provided a peek into its new post-ADAAA construction of the ADA definition of disability by releasing its “Questions and Answers on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008” Questions and answers on the Notice of Proposed Rulingmaking for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “Q&As”). 

The Q&As and other EEOC statements released this week indicate that the Proposed Regulation will emphasize that the definition of disability — an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity — must be construed broadly. It will provide that that major life activities include “major bodily functions;” that mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and that impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would “substantially limit” major life activities when active. The regulation also will provides a streamlined means through which persons claiming disability may demonstrate a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability.

Required Response

Employers face increasing exposure to disability claims as a result of the ADAAA amendments, new genetic information nondiscrimination rules enacted under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and a heightened emphasis on disabilities discrimination law enforcement by the Obama Administration.  In light of this rising exposure, employers and others covered by the ADA should evaluate their existing practices in light of the Q&As and make adjustments, submit comments regarding the Proposed Regulations or both as part of their efforts to manage their organization’s ADA liability exposure.  Because the ADAAA already is in effect, employers already face the possibility of being called upon to defend their hiring and employment practices under the amended ADAAA definition of disability, even though the EEOC has not issued final guidance.  For this reason, it is important that employers take timely action both to update relevant written policies and procedures, as well as to change hiring and other operational processes, conduct training, implement appropriate oversight and monitoring and take other steps to mitigate these exposures.

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

Other Information & Resources

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

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.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. 

Comments Off on EEOC Prepares To Broaden “Disability” Definition Under ADA Regulations | ADA, Disease Management, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, OFCCP, Retaliation, Retirement Plans | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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.

 Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers and others to respond to proposed legislation and regulations and addressing other leave and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls concerns. If your organization needs assistance with assessing or responding to H.R. 2450 or assistance with leave and absence management or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit concerns or regulations, 

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

Other Information & Resources

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

 

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

 ©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

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: , , , , , , , , , | 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

Businesses, health care providers, schools, government agencies and others concerned about preparing to cope with pandemic or other infectious disease challenges also may want to review the following resources authored by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer:

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending its wage and hour or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney.  For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see the www.cttlegal.com.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

JPI & United Airlines Lawsuits Highlight Rising Discrimination Risks To US Businesses

March 22, 2009

A federal Fair Housing Act lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department against a large Dallas-based construction and development company Tuesday, March 10, 2009 and the settlement of a United Airlines employment disability discrimination lawsuit announced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 16, 2009 provide a warning to all U.S. businesses to strengthen their employment and other nondiscrimination policies and practices.   The actions highlight the growing exposures that businesses face to employment and other discrimination claims under Federal law. 

 

JPS Fair Housing Act & ADA Suit

The Justice Department’s suit against JPS coincides with a surge in filings of employment discrimination claims and on the heels of Congresses enactment of pro-plaintiff amendments to employment and other federal discrimination laws like those enacted under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 signed into law last September. As the Obama Administration and the Democratic Majority in Congress continue to push for further liberalization of these laws, the JPI lawsuit provides tangible confirmation of the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement of federal nondiscrimination laws. The Justice Department’s proclamation in its announcement of its filing of the suit against JPI that “Fighting illegal housing discrimination is a top priority” affirms this commitment under the Fair Housing Act. See “Justice Department Sues Large Multi-Family Housing Developer Alleging Disability-Based Housing Discrimination, U.S. Justice Department (March 10, 2009) at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-crt-187.html. 

The Justice Department lawsuit charges JPI Construction L.P. (JPI) and six JPI-affiliated companies (JPI) with violating the Fair Housing Act and the public accommodations provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by the failing to provide allegedly required accessible features at multi-family housing developments in Texas and other states.  The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

According to the complaint, the JPI defendants failed to design and construct accessible dwelling units and public and common use areas at Jefferson Center Apartments in Austin, Texas; Jefferson at Mission Gate Apartments in Plano, Texas; and additional multi-family housing complexes in other states. The complaint alleges certain complexes designed and constructed by the JPI defendants have inaccessible steps and curbs leading to units, steeply sloped routes leading to units, and no accessible routes to site amenities, including inaccessible trash facilities, barbeque grills and cookout tables. In addition, certain housing units have narrow doors and hallways; kitchens that lack accessible clear floor space at the sinks, ranges and refrigerators; bathrooms that lack accessible clear floor space at the toilets and tubs; and thermostats that are mounted too high to be accessible to a person using a wheelchair. The Justice Department complaint asks the court to order monetary damages to victims of the alleged discrimination, to issue a court order requiring the defendants to modify the complexes to bring them into compliance with federal law, to prohibit future discrimination by the JPI defendants, and to assess civil penalties.

 

United Airlines & Other Evidence of Rising Employment Discrimination Exposures 

The JPI lawsuit is one of many signs of the rising discrimination exposures businesses face under federal discrimination laws.  Employment discrimination risks also are soaring and the tightening economy promises to add further fuel to the fire.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) statistics show workplace discrimination charge filings nationwide soared to an unprecedented level of 95,402 during Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, up 15 percent over the previous fiscal year.   All major categories of charge filings in the private sector including suits against private employers, as well as state and local governments increased. Charges based on age and retaliation saw the largest annual increases, while allegations based on race, sex and retaliation continued as the most frequently filed charges. The surge in charge filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, employees’ greater awareness of the law, EEOC’s focus on systemic litigation, and changes to EEOC’s intake practices.

The EEOC also continues to vigorously pursue disability and other discrimination charges.  On March 16, 2009, for example, the EEOC announced United Airlines has agreed to pay $850,000 and to change its light duty policies to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the EEOC that alleged that the company’s policy of denying overtime work to anyone on light duty violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  The EEOC charged that the policy had greater repercussions for employees with disabilities, since these workers were more likely to be assigned to light United will pay the $850,000 to a class of employees with disabilities denied the opportunity to work overtime while placed on light or limited duty.  duty when medically cleared to work overtime.   The settlement also requires United to notify all current and former employees at the San Francisco Airport who were subject to the rescinded policy and invite them to submit claims to share in the $850,000.

 

Businesses Must Act To Manage Risks

In this increasingly risky climate, businesses should review and update their existing policies and practices prohibiting unlawful discrimination in employment and the provision of services based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, veteran status or other grounds prohibited by law and take other steps to prepare to demonstrate their compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws in operation as well as form. While adopting and communicating appropriate policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination in the provisions of goods, services, and employment is an important element of these compliance efforts, businesses also must take appropriate steps to ensure their operations match the words of their policies.  Businesses should not assume that the usual recital of their equal employment and services policies alone will suffice.  Businesses also need to have and administer well-documented practices and procedures governing the report, investigation and disposition of complaints.  These procedures should include clearly written and well communicated procedures to be used to report suspected violations.  Businesses also must establish and communicate clear procedures requiring employees both to comply with these rules and to report known or suspected violations. Businesses also should train workforce members on these policies and procedures and consequences for their violation. Businesses also should consider establishing compliance hotlines and using other compliance audit processes to monitor and address possible violations.  They should be prepared to demonstrate they take seriously and take appropriate action to investigate suspected violations, to rectify confirmed violations, and to appropriately discipline employees or others that participate in prohibited violations. 

Businesses needing advice or assistance to review or defend existing disability and other non-discrimination policies and practices should contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.  To register for future updates or to review other recent updates, helpful links and information about employment and other internal controls matters, or the author, see CynthiaStamer. com. 

Comments Off on JPI & United Airlines Lawsuits Highlight Rising Discrimination Risks To US Businesses | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Risk Management | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer