Category: Constitutional Law

Estate Planning Opportunities Arising from Recent Landmark Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Marriages of Same-Sex Couples

Katten Muchin

On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in the case of United States v. Windsor (“Windsor”). In a related case, the Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal from the federal district court ruling that struck down California’s Proposition 8 (which overturned marriages of same-sex couples in California) as unconstitutional in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry (“Perry”), leaving intact the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. This advisory summarizes the estate and income tax planning opportunities and other topics for consideration arising from the Windsor and Perry decisions. Married same-sex couples should consult with their advisors in light of their particular facts and circumstances in order to take maximum advantage of the change in the law. Unmarried same-sex couples should now consider whether to marry.

In Windsor, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple, were married in Canada in 2007 after having been together in New York for over forty years. New York law did not permit marriages between same-sex couples at the time but recognized marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions. Spyer died in 2009, and Windsor inherited all of Spyer’s estate as Spyer’s surviving spouse. However, because of DOMA, which defines “marriage” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”, the federal government refused to recognize the couple’s marriage for federal estate tax purposes. As a result, Windsor’s inheritance from Spyer was not entitled to the unlimited marital deduction from federal estate tax that would have been available had Windsor and Spyer’s marriage been recognized by the federal government. After paying the estate taxes owed on her inheritance as a result of DOMA, Windsor sued for a refund of the estate taxes on the grounds that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex married couples. Windsor prevailed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and also in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court has now agreed with Windsor, holding that “DOMA seeks to injure the very class [of married same-sex couples] New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.” The Supreme Court further explained that DOMA’s “demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law.”

In Perry, two same-sex couples wished to become married in California. Though the California Supreme Court held in 2008 that the California Constitution required the State of California to recognize marriages of same-sex couples, California voters passed Proposition 8 later the same year, amending the California Constitution to provide that only “marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” As a result of Proposition 8’s passage, the two couples were unable to marry. They sued the California governor, attorney general and various other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws (the “California officials”), claiming that Proposition 8 violated their rights to due process and equal protection under the US Constitution. In the US District Court for the Northern District of California (the “district court”), the California officials refused to defend Proposition 8, but the private parties who were the proponents of Proposition 8 (the “Proposition 8 proponents”) successfully intervened to defend the measure. After the district court held that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, the California officials declined to appeal the decision and the Proposition 8 proponents appealed. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the district court on the grounds that the Proposition 8 proponents lacked standing to appeal because they were merely private parties and were not properly authorized under state law to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional remains in place and California soon will be required to permit same-sex couples to marry. As a result of the Windsor decision, such marriages also will be entitled to federal recognition.

Estate Planning Opportunities Arising from Windsor 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor requires the federal government to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Note, however, that the Supreme Court limited the scope of its decision to “lawful marriages”. Therefore, the decision likely will not be interpreted to require the federal government to recognize so-called “marriage equivalent” status that is not actually “marriage” under state law, i.e., civil unions, domestic partnerships and registered domestic partnerships. The District of Columbia and thirteen states permit marriages of same-sex couples. Those states are California (effective once the stay issued by the Ninth Circuit is lifted pursuant to the Perry decision, which is likely to be imminent), Connecticut, Delaware (effective July 1, 2013), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (effective August 1, 2013), New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (effective August 1, 2013), Vermont and Washington.

Another unresolved issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision applies to married same-sex couples who lawfully married in a jurisdiction that permits marriages of same-sex couples (e.g., New York), but who are domiciled and/or resident in a state that does not permit or recognize such marriages (e.g., Texas). Accordingly, until these issues are resolved as a result of subsequent litigation, legislation and/or regulation, it is not clear whether Windsor will be interpreted also to apply to same-sex couples with a marriage-equivalent status (but not marriage) or married same-sex couples who are domiciled and/or resident in a state that does not permit and/or recognize marriages of same-sex couples.

Against that background, at a minimum, married same-sex couples domiciled and/or resident in states that permit and/or recognize marriages of same-sex couples likely will be entitled to the more than 1,000 benefits available to married opposite-sex couples under federal law. Some of those 1,000 benefits present immediate estate planning opportunities, including the following:

1. Review estate planning documents to ensure that the amount and structure of any spousal bequests remain appropriate. 

Federal recognition of marriages of same-sex couples leads to the availability of the unlimited marital deduction from federal estate tax and gift tax for transfers between same-sex spouses. Existing estate planning documents may have been drafted with the assumption that any gift or bequest to a spouse of the same sex over and above the individual’s applicable exclusion amount from federal estate tax and/or federal gift tax (the “Applicable Exclusion Amount” —currently $5,250,000, adjusted annually for inflation) would be subject to federal estate tax (currently at a maximum rate of 40%). However, that assumption is no longer true. Indeed, such gifts and bequests, if properly structured, are now entitled to the unlimited marital deduction. In addition, under the so-called “portability” provisions of federal gift and estate tax laws, under certain circumstances a surviving spouse of the same sex will also be entitled to use any portion of the deceased spouse’s unused Applicable Exclusion Amount (the “DSUE”), allowing the surviving spouse to make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce the amount of estate taxes owed upon the surviving spouse’s death (note, however, that DSUE does not increase the surviving spouse’s applicable exemption from the federal generation-skipping transfer tax (“Federal GST Exemption”)). Accordingly, a married same-sex couple may wish to modify their estate planning documents to provide that any assets included in their estates in excess of the Applicable Exclusion Amounts will pass to the surviving spouse, either outright or in a properly structured marital trust for the spouse’s benefit, thus deferring all federal estate taxes until the death of the surviving spouse.

Estate planning documents may also be revised, if appropriate, to include a separate marital trust that is designed to permit a spouse to use any of the individual’s unused Federal GST Exemption that remains after the individual’s death.

2. Review retirement account beneficiary designations and joint and survivor annuity elections to ensure that they remain appropriate. 

A surviving spouse is entitled to roll over a decedent spouse’s retirement account into the surviving spouse’s retirement account without being required to take minimum distributions or lump sum distributions until such time as the surviving spouse ordinarily would be required to take minimum distributions (usually upon reaching age 70½). As a result of the Windsor decision, this benefit is now available to married same-sex couples. Accordingly, married same-sex spouses should consider naming each other as the beneficiary of his or her retirement accounts in order to defer income tax on the rolled over retirement account as long as possible.

With regard to any retirement plans that are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the spouse of a participant in such a plan may automatically be a beneficiary of the retirement plan as a result of the Windsor decision. Accordingly, if a participant in an ERISA-covered plan (e.g., a 401(k) plan) wishes to designate someone other than his or her spouse as a beneficiary, such participant will need to obtain the consent of his or her spouse to make such a designation effective. Prior to Windsor, consent was not needed from a spouse of the same sex. However, afterWindsor, such consent is now required. Separately, if a participant previously made an election to waive joint and survivor annuity benefits after the date of the marriage, the participant may be able to make a new election at this time, and a new election may be required in order to be valid if the marriage is newly recognized under Windsor.

3. Consider replacing individual life insurance policies with survivor policies. 

Many same-sex spouses previously purchased individual life insurance policies of which the other spouse is the beneficiary (either directly via beneficiary designation or indirectly through a life insurance trust) in order to provide the surviving spouse with sufficient liquid assets that may be used to pay federal estate taxes due upon the death of the first to die. With the unlimited marital deduction and DSUE now available to married same-sex couples, as explained above, there may be little or no need for such liquidity upon the death of the first spouse to die. Thus, a married same-sex couple should consider replacing such individual policies with so-called “survivor” or “second-to-die” policies that pay benefits only upon the death of the surviving spouse. Such policies will still provide liquidity to children or other beneficiaries of the married same-sex couple and are generally less expensive than individual policies having the same death benefits.

4. Consider splitting gifts between spouses. 

Until now, each spouse could make gifts only up to the annual exclusion amount from federal gift tax and/or federal generation-skipping transfer tax (the “Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount” and the “Annual GST Exclusion Amount”, respectively—each currently $14,000) without using any portion of his or her Applicable Exclusion Amount. Going forward, however, each spouse may now make gifts from his or her own assets and, with the other spouse’s consent, have such gifts deemed to have been made one-half by the other spouse for purposes of federal gift tax and GST tax laws. Both spouses acting together in this way currently may give up to $28,000 to any individual without using any portion of either spouse’s Applicable Exclusion Amount (note that the Annual GST Exclusion Amount does not always apply to gifts made in trust).

5. Amend previously filed federal estate, gift and income tax returns and/or file protective claims as appropriate.

Gifts made to spouses. If one spouse previously made taxable gifts to the other spouse and reduced the donor’s Applicable Exclusion Amount by the amount that the gift exceeded the Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount and/or the donor’s Federal GST Exemption by the amount that the gift exceeded the Annual GST Tax Exclusion Amount, it may be possible to amend the donor’s prior gift tax returns (subject to the limitations period discussed below) and retroactively claim the marital deduction for the gifts made in those years, thus increasing the donor’s Applicable Exclusion Amount and/or reclaim the Federal GST Exemption used. By doing so, the donor may make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce federal estate and/or GST taxes due upon his or her death. Similarly, any gift taxes or GST taxes actually paid may be refundable.

Gifts made to third parties. To the extent that either spouse previously used a portion of his or her Applicable Exclusion Amount and/or paid gift taxes or GST taxes by making gifts to third parties over and above his or her Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount and/or Annual GST Exclusion Amount, it may be possible to amend prior federal gift tax returns in order to retroactively split such gifts with the other spouse, thus increasing the donor’s Applicable Exclusion Amount and/or Federal GST Exemption. Again, doing so will allow the donor to make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce federal estate taxes and GST taxes due upon the donor’s death. Similarly, any gift or GST taxes actually paid may be refundable.

Inheritances from decedent spouses. In cases where a decedent spouse’s estate paid federal estate taxes on assets that were inherited by a surviving spouse of the same sex, it may be possible to amend the decedent spouse’s federal estate tax return (subject to the limitations period discussed below) and retroactively claim a refund for the estate taxes paid. If the decedent spouse’s estate did not pay estate taxes and he or she died in 2010 or a subsequent year, under the portability provisions of federal estate tax laws, the surviving spouse may be able to claim the deceased spouse’s DSUE, thus allowing the surviving spouse to make additional tax-free gifts and/or reduce the amount of estate taxes owed upon the surviving spouse’s death (note, however, that DSUE does not increase the surviving spouse’s Federal GST Exemption).

Income taxes. Both spouses may also amend prior year income tax returns to change their filing status from single to married filing jointly and obtain a refund if the amount of tax owed based on their married filing status is less than that owed based on their prior single status.

Retroactivity. The extent to which married same-sex couples will be allowed to amend prior tax returns depends on the extent to which Windsor is applied retroactively and whether the applicable limitations period has passed with regard to each tax return (i.e., ordinarily three years from the date the tax return was originally due or filed (if on extension) or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later). For example, it may no longer be possible to amend a 2009 individual income tax return due on April 15, 2010, that was not put on extension, but individual income tax returns for 2010, 2011 and 2012 likely may be amended. That said, it is conceivable that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will permit amendments as far back as the year of the marriage on the basis that neither spouse lawfully could have amended his or her tax returns prior to theWindsor decision. In either case, it will take some time for the IRS to develop policies and procedures to implement Windsor, and amended returns should be filed in accordance with applicable published guidance from the IRS, if available. In any situation where the limitations period is about to expire for a particular tax return, a married same-sex couple should consider filing a protective claim for a refund with the IRS in order to preserve the ability to obtain such a refund after the IRS has provided a means to amend the return.

6. Reside in a state that permits and/or recognizes marriages of same-sex couples. 

If a married same-sex couple was lawfully married in a jurisdiction that permitted the marriage but now reside in a state that does not permit and/or recognize the marriage, that couple should consider moving to a state that either permits marriages of same-sex couples or recognizes such marriages lawfully performed in other states if they wish to be certain to enjoy the federal benefits now potentially accorded to marriages of same-sex couples.

7. Non-citizen spouses should consider seeking permanent residency and/or becoming citizens. 

Until now, non-citizen spouses were not eligible for citizenship or permanent residency on the basis of their marriage to a spouse of the same sex who was a US citizen. As a result of the Windsor decision, however, non-citizens may be eligible for permanent residency and/or citizenship on that basis. Though there are many benefits to becoming a permanent resident or citizen, there are also numerous tax and non-tax consequences that should be carefully considered before making such an important decision.

Estate Planning Opportunities Arising from Perry 

California will now be required to permit marriages of same-sex couples, but other states that do not permit and/or recognize marriages of same-sex couples will not be required to do so. California married same-sex couples will enjoy all of the benefits available to married couples under federal law and thus should consider the above recommendations. In addition, married same-sex couples in California should consider the following recommendations:

1. Amend previously filed California income tax returns and/or file protective claims as appropriate. 

Married same-sex couples may be permitted to amend prior year California income tax returns to change their filing status and obtain a refund for any income taxes that were overpaid. Note that the normal limitations period for amending California returns expires four years after the original due date of the return (or the actual filing date if the return was put on extension) or one year from the date the tax was paid, whichever occurs later. If the limitations period for any particular tax return is about to expire, a married same-sex couple should consider filing a protective claim for a refund until such time as the State of California provides appropriate guidance for amending prior returns. Note that, as discussed above with regard to the limitations period for federal tax returns, it is conceivable that a married same-sex couple may be permitted to amend their returns through the first year of their marriage.

2. Amend previously filed tax returns and/or file protective claims with other states as appropriate. 

Married same-sex couples may also be entitled to amend prior gift tax and/or estate tax returns filed with other states that recognized marriage but not marriage equivalents (e.g., California registered domestic partnerships) at the time in question and receive a refund of taxes paid and/or reclaim any state gift tax and/or estate tax exemption. Again, the limitations period (if one applies) for amending such returns will vary by state. If the limitations period for any particular tax return is about to expire, a married same-sex couple should consider filing a protective claim for a refund until such time as the state provides appropriate guidance for amending prior returns.

 of

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Goes Down – Copyright Goes Up – U.S. v. Windsor, Supreme Court, No. 12-307, Decided June 26, 2013

Sheppard Mullin 2012

The Supreme Court handed down a far reaching decision throwing out an attempt by Congress to deny the benefits conferred by federal law on same sex couples legally married under state law holding that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), as so applied, constituted a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment. In so doing, and perhaps without realizing it, the Supreme Court was also writing an important copyright case.

Much of copyright law is devoted to legal protection for intellectual property under a social contract allowing authors to exclusively benefit for a limited time from the fruits of their creative endeavors in exchange for enhancing the marketplace of ideas. The presently effective Copyright Act of 1976, and its predecessors including the Copyright Act of 1909, further establish a mechanism for succession assuring that certain defined classes of individuals, the author’s “statutory heirs”, may continue to enjoy those benefits following the author’s death. These classes generally include the author’s surviving spouse and children and, in certain circumstances, the grandchildren next of kin and/or the author’s executor. Since copyrights are expressly solely a matter of federal law for the federal courts, any such federal benefits would have likely been denied by DOMA had it survived judicial scrutiny.

For example, the renewal copyright provisions allow the recapture of a deceased author’s original term copyright (copyrights secured prior to 1978) by an author’s surviving spouse and children as a class. Should there be no surviving spouse or child, the renewal right passes to the author’s executor, if there is a will, or to the author’s next-of-kin in the absence of a will. Clearly DOMA would have denied the benefits of renewal to a surviving, non-author, gay spouse even though such was legally married under state law. What would instead have happened is that an author’s children (possibly by a first marriage) would have enjoyed the entire renewal copyright to the exclusion of the legal, non-author spouse. It should, in this regard, be noted that, much to the surprise of many estate attorneys even today, the renewal and other copyright privileges flow directly from the statute to the statutory heirs without regard to the author’s plan of testamentary distribution or the state laws of intestacy.

Another example would have been the right of termination of transfers by which the author’s statutory heirs are allowed to serve Notices of Termination on prior transferees. In most cases, the author’s surviving spouse and children must jointly exercise the termination. Of course, if DOMA had survived instead of the non-author gay spouse, the children would have exclusively owned the termination rights with no legal obligation to a possibly disfavored second spouse who might be left with nothing from the estate of his or her devoted marital partner.

Neither of these scenarios will now happen…at least not from a direct application of DOMA to the provisions of the Copyright Act. Instead, the Copyright Act will continue to neutrally apply to all legally married spouses regardless of their sexual orientation.

The children, whatever their feelings may be about their father or mother’s choice of marital partner, should not feel deprived. The Supreme Court had already long ago shown favor to them. In an often forgotten decision, De Sylva v Ballentine, 351 US 570 (1956), the Supreme Court determined that even children born out of wedlock were entitled to the benefits conferred by the copyright laws on “children” as a class. However, the Supreme Court just as clearly stated that identifying who qualified as a “child” was a matter left to the states, hence, entirely consistent with the DOMA ruling. Following, De Sylva, the New York federal appellate court, the Second Circuit, applied the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court to hold that Cathy Yvonne Stone, the out of wedlock daughter of the famous country singer, Hank Williams, was entitled to share the benefits of Williams’ renewal copyrights. Once Alabama state law identified Stone as a legal child, the Copyright Act then extended renewal copyright benefits to her as a member of the federally defined class of “children”. Stone v. Williams, 970 F2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992).

Trusts and Estates attorneys, however, are not entirely out of business. The DOMA decision leaves substantial need for their services if only to determine the impact on pre-planned and future estates. The Supreme Court, both in De Sylva and Windsor, has made it clear that state law still governs who will be considered a legal spouse or child. In fact, Windsor expressly leaves intact the state law provisions of DOMA. If that were not enough, the Supreme Court’s companion decision, Hollingsworth v Perry, No. 12-144, decided June 26, 2013, leaves in place a determination, under California state law, that same-sex partners could not be denied the benefits of marriage. In short, DOMA is one piece in the same-sex marriage mosaic, but not the final piece…not close to it. Instead, the Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions will only increase the need to carefully examine the impact of state law on the effective and predictable management of literary and artistic estates.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Earlier this morning, in the case of U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the United States found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA deprived same-sex couples of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Note that the Windsor decision only applies to Section 3 of DOMA (which previously prohibited same-sex couples from enjoying any benefit under federal law). The decision does not apply to another key provision of DOMA that allows one state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.

In the separate Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenging California’s Proposition 8 (which prohibited same-sex marriages), the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. This ruling has the effect of reinstating the original opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California which found Proposition 8 unconstitutional under California law and prohibited the enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide. As a result, same-sex marriages will resume in California relatively shortly (perhaps in as soon as a month). As widely expected, the Court did not declare a constitutional right to marry in all states.

For more information on these cases and the immediate impact on employee benefit programs, please join our webinar on “DOMA and Proposition 8: Immediate Implications for Employee Benefit Plan Sponsors” scheduled for July 2, 2013.

Article By:

 

U.S. Supreme Court Directs 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to Re-Examine University of Texas’ Race-Conscious Admissions Policies

Barnes & Thornburg

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated ruling in the first affirmative-action case since the 2003 landmark decisions of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.  However,  Monday’s ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin did not reach the merits of the school’s policy, holding that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals applied the incorrect standard of review.

For academic institutions that have race-conscious admissions policies, this case does not alter the current legal requirement that such polices be “narrowly tailored” to further the compelling governmental interest of having a diverse student body.  Because the appellate court did not properly apply this “strict scrutiny” standard, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration.

In Fisher, a Caucasian applicant, Abigail Fisher, applied to the University of Texas in 2008. After being rejected for admission, Fisher sued the University, claiming that the school’s race-conscious policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment which requires that racial classifications be subjected to strict scrutiny.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the University. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, deferring to what it called “a constitutionally protected zone of discretion,” and holding that Fisher could challenge only whether the University’s decision was made in good faith.

In a 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the cursory analysis of both lower courts and held that the proper standard of review must be applied.  Specifically, the Court held that the District Court and appellate court each confined their strict scrutiny analysis too narrowly.  A “meaningful” judicial review, the Court wrote, would have assessed whether the University’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve student body diversity that “encompasses a broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though im­portant element.”

Fisher presents the most recent challenge to academic affirmative action in the Fifth Circuit, which, in 1996, effectively banned such practices in Texas. See: Hopwood v. State of Texas, 84 F. 3d 720 (5th Cir. 1996). In 2003, the Grutter case overruled that ban and the University of Texas re-implemented a race-conscious admissions policy.

Now that the Fisher case has been remanded to the appellate level, the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies in state-funded academic institutions remains unchanged.  Advocates and opponents of affirmative action in public education will have to continue to wait until the Fifth Circuit completes its review and undertakes the level of strict scrutiny review required by the Equal Protection Clause.

Article By:

 of

Social Media & Emerging Employer Issues: Are You Protected?

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On June 13, 2013, Business First of Louisville and McBrayer hosted the second annual Social Media Seminar. The seminar’s precedent, Social Media: Strategy and Implementation, was offered in 2012 and was hugely successful. This year’s proved to be no different. Presented by Amy D. Cubbage and Cynthia L. Effinger, the seminar focused on emerging social media issues for employers. If you missed it, you missed out! But don’t worry, a seminar recap is below and for a copy of the PowerPoint slides click here.

McBrayer: If a business has been designated an entity that must comply with HIPAA, what is the risk of employees using social media?

Cubbage: Employers are generally liable for the acts of their employees which are inconsistent with HIPAA data privacy and security rules. As employees’ use of social networking sites increase, so does the possibility of a privacy or security breach. An employee may be violating HIPAA laws simply by posting something about their workday that is seemingly innocent. For instance, a nurse’s Facebook status that says, “Long day, been dealing with a cranky old man just admitted into the ER” could be considered a HIPAA violation and expose an employer to sanctions and fines.

 

McBrayer: Should businesses avoid using social media so that they will not become the target of social media defamation?

Effinger: In this day and age it is hard, if not impossible, for a business to be successful without some use of social media. There is always the risk that someone will make negative comments about an individual or a business online, especially when anonymity is an option. Employers need to know the difference between negativity and true defamation. Negative comments or reviews are allowed, perhaps even encouraged, on some websites. If a statement is truly defamatory, however, then a business should make efforts to have the commentary reported and removed. The first step should always be to ask the internet service provider for a retraction of the comment, but legal action may sometimes be required.

 

McBrayer: When does a negative statement cross the line and become defamation?

Effinger: It is not always easy to tell. First, a statement must be false. If it is true, no matter how damaging, it is not defamation. The same goes for personal opinions. Second, the statement must cause some kind of injury to an individual or business, such as by negatively impacting a business’s sales, to be defamation.

 

McBrayer: Can employers ever prevent employees from “speaking” on social media?

Effinger: Employers should always have social media policies in place that employees read, sign, and abide by. While it is never really possible to prevent employees from saying what they wish on social media sites, some of their speech may not be protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause.

 

McBrayer: What constitutes “speech” on the internet? Is “liking” a group on Facebook speech? How about posting a YouTube video?

Effinger: This is a problem that courts and governmental employment agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board, are just starting to encounter. There is no bright-line rule for what constitutes “speech,” but it is safe to say that anything an employee does online that is somehow communicated to others (even “liking” a group or posting a video) qualifies.

 

McBrayer: Since a private employer is not bound by the First Amendment, can they terminate employees for social media actions with no repercussions?

Effinger: No! In fact, it could be argued that private employees are afforded more protection for what they say online than public employees. While a private employer has no constitutional duty to allow free speech, the employer is subject to state and federal laws that may prevent them from disciplining an employee’s conduct. As a general rule, private employees have the right to communicate in a “concerted manner” with respect to “terms and conditions” of their employment. Such communication is protected regardless of whether it occurs around the water cooler or, let’s say, on Twitter.

 

McBrayer: It seems like the best policy would be for employers to prohibit employees from discussing the company in any negative manner. Is this acceptable?

Effinger: It is crucial for companies to have social media policies and procedures, but crafting them appropriately can be tricky. There have been several instances where the National Labor Relations Board has reviewed a company’s policy and found its overly broad restrictions or blanket prohibitions illegal. Even giant corporations like General Motors and Target have come under scrutiny for their social media policies and been urged to rewrite them so employees are given more leeway.

 

McBrayer: Is social media a company asset?

Cubbage: Yes! Take a moment to consider all of the “followers”, “fans”, or “connections” that your business may have through its social media accounts. These accounts provide a way to constantly interact with and engage clients and customers. Courts have recently dealt with cases where a company has filed suit after a rogue employee stole a business account in some manner, for instance by refusing to turn over an account password. Accounts are “assets,” even if not tangible property.

 

McBrayer: What is the best way for an employer to protect their social media accounts?

Cubbage: Social media accounts should first be addressed in a company’s operating agreement. Who gets the accounts in the event the company splits? There are additional steps every employer should take, such as including a provision in social media policies that all accounts are property of the business. Also, there should always be more than one person with account information, but never more than a few. Treat social media passwords like any other confidential business information – they should only be distributed on a “need to know” basis.

Article By:

 of

 

EEOC Files Two Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Lawsuits in Two Weeks

barnes

The EEOC recently filed its first-ever lawsuit alleging a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) – and subsequently filed its second GINA lawsuit one week later.

The first lawsuit settled, with a fabrics distributor paying $50,000 and agreeing to take other specified actions (i.e. posting an anti-discrimination notice, among other things) after the EEOC alleged a violation of GINA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, with respect to GINA, the EEOC charged that the distributor violated the Act when it asked the woman for her family medical history in a post-offer medical examination, including questions relating to the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis, and “mental disorders” in her family.

The second lawsuit remains pending and was filed against a nursing and rehabilitation center. The EEOC similarly charged that the center violated GINA when it requested family medical history in a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination. The second lawsuit also alleges violations of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

dna (1)

According to the EEOC, GINA “makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history; and also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information.”

As noted in both press releases, one of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the agency to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, which includes genetic discrimination. As this recent EEOC action signals a focus on GINA issues, employers are encouraged to ensure their policies related to employee medical information and examination comply with the Act.

Employers Have Until October 1st to Comply with Affordable Care Act’s Notice Requirements

Lowndes_logo

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Affordable Care Act”) represents the most substantial overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system in decades.  Much of the Affordable Care Act is meant to expand access to affordable health insurance coverage, including provisions for coverage to be offered through a Health Insurance Marketplace (the “Marketplace”) beginning in 2014.  As part of the overhaul, the Affordable Care Act requires most employers to provide written notice to their employees of coverage options available through the Marketplace and to give employees information regarding the coverage, if any, offered by the employer.

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently issued a Technical Release, which provides temporary guidance regarding the notice requirement and announces the availability of the Model Notice to Employees of Coverage Options.  The Technical Release can be obtained from the following link to the DOL’s website:  www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr13-02.html.

Notice to Employees Under the Affordable Care Act

Beginning October 1, 2013, most employers must give a written notice to each employee,[1] regardless of plan enrollment status or the employee’s status as a part-time or full-time employee, with the following information:

  • The notice must include information regarding the existence of the new Marketplace as well as contact information and a description of the services provided by the Marketplace
  • The notice must inform the employee that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace
  • The notice must include a statement informing the employee that if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for federal income tax purposes

Employers must provide the notice to current employees no later than October 1, 2013 when “open enrollment” begins for coverage through the Marketplace.  For new employees, employers must provide the notice at the time of hiring beginning October 1, 2013.  For 2014, if the notice is provided within 14 days of an employee’s start date, the DOL will consider the notice to be provided at the time of hiring.

The notice must be provided to employees in writing.  The notice may be sent via first class mail or it may be provided electronically as long as the requirements of the DOL’s electronic disclosure safe harbor are met.  Employers may not charge their current employees or new hires a fee for providing the notice.

To assist employers with complying with the notice requirement, the DOL has drafted two model notices that meet the notice content requirements discussed above.  The model notice for employers who do not offer a health plan is available at the following link:  www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/FLSAwithoutplans.pdf.  The model for employers who do offer a health plan to some or all of their employees is available at the following link:  www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/FLSAwithplans.pdf.

Updated Model Election Notice Under COBRA

Under COBRA, a group health plan administrator must provide qualified beneficiaries with an election notice describing their rights to continuation of health insurance coverage and how to make an election.  A “qualified beneficiary” is an individual who was covered by a group health plan on the day before the occurrence of a qualifying event, such as termination of employment or reduction in hours that causes loss of health insurance coverage under the group health plan.

The DOL’s Technical Release includes a revised COBRA model election notice to help make qualified beneficiaries aware of other coverage options available in the Marketplace.  Upon the group health plan administrator filling in the blanks in the model election notice with the appropriate plan information and using the notice, the DOL will consider the use of the model notice to be good faith compliance with the election notice content requirements of COBRA.  Employers should begin using the model election notice immediately.

The COBRA model election notice can be obtained from the following link to the DOL’s website:  www.dol.gov/ebsa/cobra.html.

[1] Employers are not required to provide a separate notice to employees’ dependents or other individuals who are or may become eligible for coverage under the plan but who are not employees of the employer.

Article By:

 of

“Essential Functions” Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Can Include Job Functions that are Infrequently Performed

Poyner Spruill

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires covered employers generally to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities. The ADA provides, however, that the employee must be able to perform the “essential functions” of the job with the accommodation, and that the accommodation cannot prove to be an “undue hardship” on the employer.

In the recent case of Knutson v. Schwan’s Home Service, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a job requirement can be an “essential function,” even if the employee is not required to perform the function on a regular basis.

In this case, Mr. Knutson was a manager for Schwan’s Home Service, which delivers frozen food. Managers for Schwan’s are required to maintain DOT driving certification.  In March 2008, Mr. Knutson sustained an eye injury.  Because of the eye injury, Mr. Knutson was required to undergo a medical exam and be recertified.  In December 2008, an eye doctor refused to give Mr. Knutson a DOT certification or a waiver.  Schwan’s then gave Mr. Knutson 30 days to find a job within the company that did not require DOT driving certification.  Mr. Knutson was unable to find such a job within the company and was terminated by Schwan’s.

Following his termination, Mr. Knutson filed suit against Schwan’s pursuant to the ADA.  He argued that since he was able to successfully manage his terminal without driving a truck that maintaining the DOT certification was not an “essential function” of his position.  The evidence before the court showed that Mr. Knutson was DOT qualified at the time of his injury; he admitted to delivering product in his personal vehicle; and he testified that since November 2007 that he had driven a truck less than 50 times while working as a manager.

The court disagreed with Mr. Knutson and held that “essential functions” of a job are determined based on the written job description, the employer’s judgment, and the experience and expectations of all individuals working in the same position.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Schwan’s.

The court’s ruling in this case is good news for employers.  Employers should use this case as a reminder of the importance of having a carefully analyzed comprehensive written job description for all positions, clearly identifying essential functions of the position.  In addition, if essential functions of a position change over time, it is important to make appropriate revisions to the written job description for the position.

Article By:

 of

Sixth Circuit Upholds Michigan Law Which Bars Schools from Collection Union Dues

Barnes & Thornburg

The 6th Circuit in Bailey v. Callahan, decided Thursday, May 9, has vacated an injunction entered by the District Court and has upheld Michigan’s Public Act 53 which prohibits Michigan’s public schools from assisting in the collection of dues and service fees for unions. The Court summarized the Union’s First Amendment challenge to the statute in this way:

“Unions engage in speech (among many other activities); they need membership dues to engage in speech; if the public schools do not collect the unions’ membership dues for them, the unions will have a hard time collecting the dues themselves; and thus Public Act 53 violates the unions’ right to free speech.”

The problem with that, according to the majority opinion, is that this argument has already been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (2009). Moreover, the Court determined that Public Act 53 does not restrict speech and is not designed to specifically suppress speech by teachers’ unions. Finally, the Court, in two paragraphs, rejected the plaintiff’s equal protection argument.

The opinion incited a lengthy dissent from Circuit Judge Jane Stranch who contended that the majority “mischaracterizes the First Amendment interests at stake, glosses over key distinctions the Supreme Court requires us to observe, and averts its gaze from Act 53’s blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

With a 2-1 decision and a lengthy dissent on a Constitutional claim, one would think this is headed for an en banc determination by the full Sixth Circuit.

Article By:

 of

Circuit Court Upholds Michigan Public Act 53: Public Schools Prohibited from Collecting Union Dues

Varnum LLP

Responding to a challenge to the constitutionality of Michigan Public Act 53, which prohibits public schools from collecting union dues from employees, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the act is constitutional. The result of this ruling is that, at this point, public schools are statutorily precluded from collecting dues for the union under any bargaining agreement that was entered into, renewed or extended after March 16, 2012.

The plaintiffs, who are school unions and union members, argued that the act violates their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.  The district court, agreeing with the plaintiffs, had issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law.  The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, dissolved the injunction and remanded the case “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”  It is unclear whether any viable challenge to the statute remains for the district court to address or whether dismissal of the claim is now in order.

The 6th Circuit ruled that Public Act 53 does not violate the First Amendment.  The plaintiffs argued that unions need membership dues to engage in speech and if the public schools don’t collect the union dues for them, the unions will have a hard time collecting the dues themselves.  Therefore, Public Act 53 violates the unions’ right to free speech.  The majority opinion stated that the First Amendment prohibits government from limiting the freedom of speech, but it does not give the right to use government payroll systems for the purpose of obtaining funds for speech.  The court concluded that Public Act 53 does not restrict speech.  It “merely directs one kind of public employer to use its resources for its core mission rather than for the collection of union dues.”

Similarly, the Court decided that the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim fails.  The plaintiffs argued that Public Act 53 violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14 Amendment because it applies only to unions that represent school employees and not to other public employers.  The court held that there is a legitimate interest in this classification.  That is, the Michigan legislature “could have concluded that it is more important for the public schools to conserve their limited resources for their core mission than it is for other state and local employers.”

It remains to be seen whether the Sixth Circuit’s opinion ends the debate or if there will be continued challenge.

 of