Labor Law Journal » Labor Center » March 2010

Feeds

1680 items (1680 unread) in 5 feeds

• Labor Law Blog (82 unread)
• Federal Employment Law (702 unread)
• Labor Prof (749 unread)
• Labor and Employment Law (19 unread)
• Labor Center (128 unread)

Labor Center (9 unread)

• 

  New CHIP Notification Requirement

  Posted: March 31st, 2010, 6:28am EDT by Cara

  The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued a notice for employers to inform workers annually of state healthcare premium assistance.

   

  Under the CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2009, employers who offer group health plans must notify employees each year of the right to premium assistance under the state Medicaid or CHIP program.

   

  Employers must notify qualified workers by the first day of the first plan year falling after February 4, 2010 or May 1, 2010, and every year thereafter. Many employers have annual healthcare plans, so the notification date would be before January 1, 2011.

   

  Workers who reside in Alabama, Alaska, California, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming must receive notification.

   

  In addition, employees in other states must be notified if the group health plan offers services in any one of these states. This is true, regardless of the employee’s or employer’s location. For example, employees in Mississippi are not covered by any state assistance program. However, a Mississippi employer must notify employees who live in Mississippi if their group health insurance also offers benefits in Alabama.

   

  Most employers provide the notice to every employee every year. This puts the company in compliance with the law, and eliminates the need to determine which employee’s will qualify for assistance based on family income and location.

  Usually the notices are attached to annual information regarding healthcare benefits, but they may be distributed individually, as a memo or with paychecks, or in another way.

   

  CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program is also referred to as “Children’s Medicaid” covers uninsured children and teens who might not otherwise qualify for Medicaid. Employers and interested parties have until April 5, 2010 to comment on the new notice and suggest changes for future years.

• 

  New Health Reform Law

  Posted: March 26th, 2010, 6:27am EDT by Amelia

  According to industry experts, the healthcare reform signed into law on March 23, 2010 and amended earlier today will have wide-reaching effects on employers nationwide.

   

  The greatest change for HR pros and employers under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will come from penalties to employers who fail to provide group health insurance. The law technically stops short of a mandate, because it does not require that employers provide healthcare benefits to workers. However, companies that fail to offer health care coverage will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee beginning January 1, 2014. The law makes an exception for small employers, as the first 30 workers do not count towards the penalty.

   

  If the employer offers health care benefits, if even one employee applies for a federal subsidy to purchase individual health insurance, the employer may be fined $750 per person, under the law signed by President Barack Obama.

   

  One important change involves how employees are enrolled in healthcare plans. Under the new system, employers with 200 or more employees will automatically enroll new employees in the group health insurance. Employees will have to intentionally opt out of the plan, in order to not receive healthcare.

   

  The law also includes provisions to make healthcare coverage more affordable for low-income workers, according to the Society for Human Resource Management or SHRM. An employee who earns less than four times the federal poverty level will have the option of buying health insurance through a health care exchange.

   

  Small business owners and employees will have the option of purchasing health insurance through an exchange, which will offer lower rates for insurance than currently available. So-called SHOP exchanges, or Small Business Health Options Programs, will be available to employers with 100 workers or less.

   

  When an employee chooses to purchase healthcare through an exchange, the employer must provide a free-choice voucher. With the voucher, the employer promises to pay an amount equal to the cost of healthcare benefits to other employees. This provision is designed to promote competition in the health insurance field, resulting in better care and lower prices.

   

  While a number of these provisions go into effect in 2013 or later, two parts of the bill go into effect during the next benefit year. Those include provisions that will require healthcare plans to cover pre-existing provisions, and to offer preventative care.

   

  Buy 2014, individuals will be required to purchase health insurance, and middle-class workers will receive tax credits for doing so.

   

  Any employee with a religious objection to healthcare coverage will have the ability to apply for a waiver. Additional waivers are available to those who cannot afford coverage. Those without coverage or a waiver would pay penalties beginning at $95 in 2014 and rising to $750 or more in 2016.

   

  While the healthcare reform law provides grant to employers who offer wellness programs to all employees, it eliminates financial incentives to employees who participate in such programs.

   

• 

  Gender-specific Profanity is Hostile Work Environment

  Posted: March 24th, 2010, 10:26am EDT by Amelia

  A recent court case highlights the necessity for employers to eliminate gender-specific vulgarity from the workplace. While some employers may still choose to allow swearing at work, language that is defamatory towards any sex or racial group should be forbidden, even if it does not target any one individual.

   

  In a case involving trucking company C. H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., sales rep Ingrid Reeves complained repeatedly to upper management about the pervasive use of crude and derogatory terms for women, including female co-workers, clients and women in general. She was also exposed daily to a radio program that was vulgar and made derogatory statements about women.  Reeves objected almost daily to her coworkers about their conduct, first in person and then by email.

   

  As the only female Transportation Sales Rep, Reeves worked in an open cubical floor plan at C.H. Robinson with men who viewed porn in full sight of her and their supervisors.

   

  Reeves complained to the branch manager, whose conduct was similarly vulgar. He claims to have discussed her complaints with the male workers, but acknowledges that no change in their actions occurred.

   

  In the initial ruling, a lower court determined that vulgar, offensive language in itself is not sex discrimination. On appeal, the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but found that pervasive sexually offensive language, especially denigrating women, created a hostile work environment for a female.

   

  The federal court in Alabama had previously ruled that sex-specific profanity is more degrading to women then to men.

   

  In an important ruling for the workplace, the court determined that even if the offensive language is not directed at the female employee, it can create a hostile work environment.

   

  Despite the daily use of words that cannot be aired on prime-time TV, plus additional derogatory terms for women, the employer argued that the harassment was not severe or pervasive. They also argued that because both men and women were subjected to the same high level of profanity and vulgarity, this did not constitute sexual harassment.

   

  In this case, the court found that the harassment was severe enough to “alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment.”  Read the ruling for more information on the words used.

   

• 

  New EEOC Discrimination Task Force

  Posted: March 19th, 2010, 6:37am EDT by Jolie

  Employers need to be more vigilant in hiring and promotions than ever before. That’s because a new EEOC task force has increased enforcement actions against employers who lack diversity in their workforce, calling such situations “systemic discrimination.” The agency may initiate investigations, even in the absence of an employee complaint.

   

  Similar efforts against federal contractors have been introduced by the OFCCP or Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

   

  To cite just two examples, the EEOC recently announced a $2 million settlement with Les Schwab Tire Centers in a sex discrimination case. The company was accused of not hiring qualified females for its auto care stores in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Montana and Utah since 2004.

   

  In a separate case, Wal-Mart paid $11.7 million to settle a sex discrimination case involving applicants for warehouse jobs in the London, Kentucky distribution center. Hiring officials with the retail giant told female applicants that the positions were not suitable for women, and that most new hires were men between 18 and 25 years of age.

   

  The EEOC defends the actions, saying they are more likely to impact a larger number of employees, rather than just investigating one incident.

   

  This means that a single discrimination complaint by one employee or job candidate could result in a widespread investigation that examines every hiring or promotion decision over several years.

   

  Employers need to maintain clear records of the objective reasons for hiring, promotions, lay offs and terminations.

   

   

  In the past, each EEOC regional office handled its own cases, with little communication between them. With this change in priorities, however, better information flow means that if the agency receives a complaint from an employee in one state, they will investigate the company’s operations in other states as well.

   

  The change in priorities has been supported because federal agencies including the EEOC have invested in computers and additional technology that makes it easy for them to share information and identify areas of concern. Many of these cases involve discrimination against individuals with disabilities, as well as claims of illegal discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, sex or pregnancy.

   

  Employers should have data on the diversity of the workforce, broken down by job title. If there are not enough minority employees in certain positions, the employer should take a pro-active approach to recruiting them.

   

  The EEOC has already put these tactics into action against major companies with operations across the nation, such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens and Target.

• 

  Oklahoma Immigration Law

  Posted: March 17th, 2010, 6:07am EDT by Derrick

  Oklahoma state contractors must use the federal E-Verify system to authenticate all new hires, despite a lawsuit from small business owners and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

   

  However, another test of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act in court is likely. The state Supreme Court may become involved to settle this dispute.

   

  The 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the state can enforce this portion of the Oklahoma immigration law. The Chamber of Commerce argued that only the federal government has the right to control immigration, and therefore the state law was unconstitutional. This argument failed, which is no surprise considering that at least a dozen states have immigration laws.

   

  Although all three judges of the appellate court agreed on the ruling, they cited different reasons for doing so. Judge Kelly said that the court can reasonably assume that using the federal E-Verify does not conflict with the purpose of federal immigration law.

   

   Meanwhile, Judge Harris Hartz simply noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not the appropriate group to sue the state over this matter, since the Chamber could not show how they would suffer any harm from its enforcement. That ruling suggests that at least one judge might be inclined to rule differently, if a business owner sued the state over the immigration law. Judge Lucero disagreed, saying he thinks the E-Verify provision should be thrown out.

   

  In a partial victory for the small business owners, the state is still prevented by the courts from enforcing a second provision of the Oklahoma immigration law, which would permit legal workers who were laid off to sue the employer for discrimination, if undocumented workers were still employed. Under a ruling from 2008, the courts found that provision to be unenforceable.

  Federal law expressly prohibits civil penalties for immigration offenses when the employer is covered by the IRCA, the federal Immigration and Control Act.

   

   

• 

  Limits on California Kin Care

  Posted: March 12th, 2010, 8:12pm EST by Cara

  The California Supreme Court recently ruled that employees are not entitled to unlimited time off to care for family members who are ill.

   

  Under the California Kin Care law implemented in 1999, employers that offer accrued sick leave to workers must allow employees to use up to half their annual total to care for a spouse, child, parent or domestic partner who is ill.

   

  Then as now, there is no requirement under the law that any California employer must provide sick leave to employees. However, for employers who choose to offer this benefit, the law addresses how it may be used.

   

  In a rare unanimous ruling, the court found that the California Kin Care law applies only when a company awards a specific amount of sick leave, and that sick leave can be accrued.

   

  The trend among some larger companies is to offer employees unlimited sick leave, especially under certain collective bargaining agreements.

   

  Applauding the victory for California employers, attorney Anthony Oncidi noted that the law was a “perfect example” of a well-meaning law that resulted in abuse by employees. He noted that many California companies had actually reduced or eliminated sick leave policies, due to the previous restrictions.

   

  In the test case involving telephone company AT&T, Inc., the employer provided up to 5 days of paid sick leave for a legitimate illness in any 7-day period. The sick leave period reset each time the employee returned to work, under a collective bargaining agreement. Employees who were off more than one week were eligible for short term disability, and employees could be disciplined for excessive absenteeism.

   

  The employer argued that since sick leave was basically unlimited, it was excessive to expect the company to grant half of the sick leave to an employee taking care of a sick relative. That would theoretically result in unlimited time off to care for relatives, under the law.

   

  Initially, the trial court agreed with the employer, but that was overturned on appeal. The California Supreme Court again found for the employer. In the majority opinion, Justice Carolos Moreno noted that if the court did not limit the law, it would permit an employee to claim as kin care much more time off than the employee would be entitled to personally.

• 

  Arkansas Safety and Health Conferences 2010

  Posted: March 10th, 2010, 5:39am EST by Jolie

  The Arkansas Department of Labor recently announced the schedule of health conferences for 2010.

   

  The agency schedules annual worker safety conferences. There are separate conferences for public and private employers. The conferences focus on worker safety and compliance including improving safety for teen workers. Initial findings show that fatal workplace accidents were down in 2009, due in part to increased safety awareness by employers, including those who attended conferences.

   

  For private employers including businesses, the first 2010 Arkansas Safety and Health Conferences was held on February 25 in Little Rock. Additional conferences will be held in Pine Bluff on March 25, in Russellville on May 6 and in Ft. Smith on May 12.

   

  For the summer, Arkansas Health Conferences are scheduled in West Memphis on June 10, El Dorado on July 22, Bentonville on August 12 and  in Ashdown on August 19.

   

  Fall conferences are scheduled in Jonesboro on September 9, in Batesville on October 7, and in Hope on October 14. The final conference of the year for private employers is in Blytheville on October 28. Contact Judy Harwell at 501-682-9092 to register, or for more information on conferences for private employers.

   

  For public employers including state and municipal government agencies, 10 Health Conferences are scheduled. They will take place in Johnson on March 10, in Hot Sprints on March 18, in West Memphis on March 22, in Dermott on April 8 and in Jonesboro on May 19.

   

  Summer conferences for employers in the public sector will be held in Mena on June 17, and in Bella Vista on August 5. In the fall, conferences will be held in hope on September 9, in Forth Smith on September 22 and in North Little Rock on October 20.

   

  Contact Kevin Looney at 501-682-4521 for information concerning the Public Sector Conferences.

   

   

• 

  COBRA Subsidy Extended Again

  Posted: March 5th, 2010, 5:39am EST by Amelia

  As predicted, the federal government extended the COBRA subsidy on March 2, 2010. The Temporary Extension Act of 2010 results in a continued COBRA premium subsidy to American workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. In addition, the act extends the subsidy from 9 months to 15 months for many affected workers.

   

  The COBRA subsidy extension applies to employees who are involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and March 31, 2010.

   

  Under a new provision of the COBRA subsidy, workers who are terminated involuntarily on or after March 2, 2010 are eligible if that termination follows a qualifying event that was a reduction of hours. The qualifying event must have occurred between September 2, 1008 and March 31, 2010. For example, if an employee’s hours were reduced in November 2009 and he is subsequently laid off after March 2, 2010, he will qualify for the COBRA premium reduction.

   

  The current premium reduction lasts for 15 months and applies to employees who were laid off on or after February 17, 2009. Some of these employees have already had the COBRA subsidy for 9 months. For those employees, the new act allows for a 60-day “transition period” when the workers must be notified of the continued availability of benefits and given additional time to pay. Employers with questions about these requirements should consult the Frequently Asked Questions on the COBRA Premium Reduction Extension Provisions on the EBSA website at www.dol.gov/cobra.

   

  Individuals who lost their subsidy and paid the full 100 percent premium for December 2009 should contact their plan administrator or employer sponsoring the plan to discuss a credit for future months of coverage or a reimbursement of the overpayment.

   

  As with the previous COBRA premium reductions, employers must face a new round of worker notification.

   

  Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, commonly called COBRA, employees with group health insurance can continue coverage during periods of unemployment. Usually employees must pay 102% of the total monthly premium for their group health insurance, including any amount previously paid by the employer.

   

  However, the COBRA premium reduction permits eligible persons to pay just 35% of the total premium. The employer pays the remaining 65%, and is reimbursed by the federal government when filing quarterly payroll taxes.

   

• 

  Rhode Island Discrimination Law

  Posted: March 3rd, 2010, 5:12am EST by Derrick

  A recent change to the Rhode Island discrimination law means that an employer can be sued three years later, if an employee feels he or she has been the victim of discrimination. The new law goes into effect immediately.

   

  Under the previous law, there was a one-year statute of limitations on employment discrimination.

   

  The Rhode Island legislature passed the amendment over Governor Donald Carcieri ‘s veto.

   

  The Rhode Island Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on color, race, religion, disability, sex, age or national origin. It outlaws employment discrimination and retaliation.

   

  This extension overturns a Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling in Horn v. Southern Union, which established a one-year statute of limitations.

   

  This law is enforced by the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights, based in Providence. The agency, established in 1949, is one of the oldest such commissions in the nation.

   

  The Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act still requires that lawsuits be filed within one year. Since the two laws overlap, the Governor vetoed the extension. However, the Rhode Island General Assembly overrode that veto.  

   

  “There are many reasons a person may not be ready to file suit within one year,” said Rep. Donna Walsh, one of the bill’s sponsors. “Victims may fear the  ordeal or a backlash. A victim may not be aware of his or her rights and neglect to file immediately.”

   

  Rep. Walsh added, “There is no reason to give discrimination victims less time to file a suit than is given for other types of lawsuits.”

   

  This law makes it even more important that Rhode Island employers preserve all employment records for at least three years, including information on hiring, pay and termination.

   

  In addition to issues of sexual harassment and employment discrimination, this law also covers fair housing and the ability to enter into contracts.