Category: Labor & Employment

USCIS Strictly Enforcing the Statutory Provisions in Adjudicating H-1B Petitions Filed Under the 20,000 Advanced Degree Cap

GT Law

 

A separate cap of 20,000 H-1B’s is allotted for those foreign nationals who were awarded advanced degrees in the U.S. However, not all degrees qualify under this provision. Recently, USCIS has been enforcing this provision very strictly, issuing requests for evidence, denials, and even initiating revocation proceedings for previously approved petitions under the advanced degree cap.

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 214(g)(5)(c) provides that those foreign nationals who earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education can file under the 20,000 cap, which is separate from the 65,000 cap reserved for all other H-1B petitions, with the exception of colleges, universities, and qualifying affiliated institutions who are exempt from the cap altogether. This section further states that only degrees awarded by those institutions which fit the definition set forth in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)). This section of the law, in turn, defines a U.S. institution of higher education as a public or other non-profit institution accredited by a “nationally recognized accrediting agency or association” or “granted a pre-accreditation status”. Degrees received from institutions which do not fit this definition, though located in the U.S. and award advanced degrees, do not qualify an H-1B petition to be filed under the 20,000 cap.

In the past USCIS has been liberal in reading this section, rarely rejecting filings made under this cap where the foreign national held an advanced degree awarded in the U.S. However, recently, in following its new policy of strict interpretation and observance of the immigration laws and regulations, USCIS has begun to closely scrutinize these filings, issuing requests for evidence, and even denials where it finds that the institution does not fit within the requisite definition to qualify. What’s more, Greenberg Traurig has been informed that USCIS has begun revocation proceedings for previously approved H-1B petitions, where it determined that it previously approved H-1B petitions under the advanced degree cap in error.

This year’s H-1B filings are once again expected to surpass the amount allotted under both caps within the first week, with USCIS conducting a random lottery to choose H-1B petitions for adjudication, similarly to last year. If a petition is filed erroneously requesting adjudication under the advanced degree cap and is rejected by USCIS, with both caps having been exhausted within the first week of the filing season, it is unlikely to be re-filed for the same fiscal year. Therefore, it is very important to provide all of the academic credentials in connection with the H-1B filing to your GT business immigration and compliance attorney and make sure to speak with them about the requirements involved with the H-1B petition cap filings.

Article by:

Nataliya Rymer

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Federal Court Upholds Validity of 2011 H-2B Prevailing Wage

Jackson Lewis Logo

The Temporary Non-agricultural Employment 2011 H-2B Wage Rule for calculating the prevailing wage rates (“Rule”) has cleared one of the last hurdles to implementation by the U.S. Department of Labor, with a ruling by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia upholding the regulation.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on February 5 that the DOL has authority to make rules regulating the H-2B program, that the Rule was lawfully promulgated and that it did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act or the Immigration and Naturalization Act.  The lawsuit was brought by employer associations that recruit H-2B workers and stand to face higher labor costs as a result of the Rule.  The case is La. Forestry Ass’n v. Sec’y United States DOL, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2167 (3d Cir. Feb. 5, 2014).

The Rule (76 Fed. Reg. 3,452 (Jan. 19, 2011) (codified at 20 C.F.R. § 655.10)) eliminated the “four-tier wage methodology” in favor of the mean Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) wage for each occupational category, and established a wage calculation regime wherein the prevailing wage is the highest of the applicable collective bargaining agreement(s), the rate established under the DBA[???] or Service Contract Act, or the OES mean.  It also barred use of employer-submitted surveys if the prevailing wage can be determined based on OES data or the rates established under the DBA or SCA. According to DOL’s estimates, “the change in the method … will result in a $4.83 increase in the weighted average hourly wage for H-2B workers and similarly employed U.S. workers[,]” and a total annual transfer cost of $847.4 million.

This Third Circuit decision is welcomed by DOL, which has faced numerous court challenges in its efforts to promulgate new H-2B rules since 2008.  The 2011 H-2B Wage Rule was published in response to an August 2010 court order enjoining the agency from implementing its 2008 H-2B wage rule on the ground that it violated the APA, promulgated without seeking public comment.   The court ordered the DOL to promulgate new, APA-compliant rules.

Even though DOL published the 2011 Rule within the time ordered, its implementation has been held up by court action and by Congressional “appropriations concerns” denying DOL funding.  DOL continued to use its 2008 rule.  This was challenged and in March 2013, a federal district court vacated the 2008 wage rule and permanently enjoined the agency form implementing it (see www.globalimmigrationblog.com/2013/03).  The court gave the DOL 30 days to comply.  As a result, DOL and USCIS published a joint interim final rule in April 2013 that established a new methodology for calculating H-2B prevailing wages (seewww.globalimmigrationblog.com/2013/04), which DOL indicated would be effective only until the 2011 H-2B Wage Rule took effect.

Since Congress lifted the appropriations ban on the Rule when it enacted the DOL Appropriations Act, 2014 (see Pub. L. 113-76, Div. H, Title I (2014)), we anticipate DOL will now apprise the public of the status of H-2B prevailing wages and the effective date of the Rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.

The Third Circuit recognized its decision may lead to  a rift in the courts of appeals.   In Bayou Lawn & Landscape Servs. v. Sec. of Labor, 713 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2013), the Atlanta court affirmed an injunction barring implementation of the interim rule preliminarily, finding DOL had no rulemaking authority over the program.  The Third  Circuit cautioned, however,   that Bayou may not be the last word on the subject from its sister circuit: “The three-member panel in Bayou opined only on whether the District Court abused its discretion…, not on whether the DOL actually has that authority or not….”

Article by:

Otieno B. Ombok

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

The NLRB Revives Controversial Expedited Election Rules – National Labor Relations Board

Michael Best Logo

On February 6, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reissued its controversial rules aimed at expediting union elections in the workplace. This rule, referred to as the “Ambush Election Rule,” could limit an employer’s right to express its views to employees and respond to union statements. The proposed rules mirror the NLRB’s June 2011 proposal, which ultimately was struck down by a district court in May 2012.

Analogous to the June 2011 proposal, the NLRB’s most recent proposal seeks to significantly impact the current union election process. The proposed reforms are aimed at shortening the election cycle from the current median of 38 days from petition to election to as little as 10 to 21 days. The proposed reforms also would move resolution of voter eligibility determination to after the election; reduce the NLRB’s review of representation cases; expand employer disclosure of employee contact information (including e-mail addresses); and allow more electronic filing with the NLRB.

Despite reducing the amount of time an employer has to communicate its message or rebut the union’s statements, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce has stated the proposed rules are intended to “improve the process for all parties.” The NLRB is likely to issue a final rule governing union elections later this year.

Action Steps?

The NLRB has issued a proposed rule, and by law, will allow for public comments through April 7, 2014. Employers may direct comments regarding the proposed reforms to the NLRB here. Additionally, the NLRB will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules in Washington D.C. during the week of April 7, 2014, and employers may voice their concerns at the forum.

Finally, employers should consider conducting a vulnerability audit to identify any concerns that can be addressed now (rather than after a final rule is put in place) and should provide supervisors and management with training so they are prepared to address any potential NLRB election situation.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Office Romances: 3-Part Series on How to Shield Your Company from Liability Part 3

GT Law

 

According to a recent CareerBuilder survey, four in ten people admitted to dating a co-worker, and one-third eventually married that person.  Whether a relationship between peers, relationships between supervisors/subordinates, flings, long-term relationships, or extramarital affairs, office romances can lead to unwelcome complaints and expensive lawsuits.

Part 1 of this three-part series addressed the potential risks that office romances pose to companies, and Part 2 covered the importance of adopting and enforcing a company policy addressing fraternization.  This final installment offers recommended steps you should take now to defend potential claims of discrimination and harassment.

Tips for Employers

Employers should prepare and implement a clear policy regarding office relationships or update an existing one, and be sure to disseminate it and obtain employees’ acknowledgements.   The policy should address to extent to which office relationships are permissible, and, if appropriate, require employees to promptly disclose the existence (or termination) of a romantic or sexual relationship to a designated member of Human Resources or management. When the employees involved are in a supervisor/subordinate relationship, disclosure is especially critical so that the employer may effectively address the impact of the relationship (e.g., evaluating if it is necessary to change job duties or reassign the employee(s)).

If harassment occurs despite an employer’s best efforts to prevent and stop it, you will have a strong defense if you can demonstrate that you have done the following:

  • Implement and enforce a sexual harassment and office romance policy that provides a clear reporting channel and prohibits retaliation for good faith complaints.
  • Respect employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their relationship in line with the company policies.
  • Train new and existing employees on the sexual harassment policy and document the training.
  • Train managers on what constitutes sexual harassment and how to handle complaints.
  • Train employees to report inappropriate behavior.
  • If a relationship develops between a manager and his/her subordinate, transfer one of them if possible to eliminate a direct reporting relationship.
  • Promptly and thoroughly investigate complaints.
  • Take appropriate corrective action to address prior incidents of sexual harassment.

Regardless of the type of policy your company adopts, be sure to customize it to the needs and actual practices of your business.  Train employees and managers on expectations governing office romances.  A well-drafted and uniformly enforced fraternization (or non-fraternization) policy will not prevent workplace relationships altogether, but it can protect you if you encounter office romances.

See Part 1 Here

See Part 2 Here 

Article by:

Mona M. Stone

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Office Romances: 3-Part Series on How to Shield Your Company from Liability Part 2

GT Law

 

More than ever, employers are facing serious claims arising from office romances.  Part 1of this three-piece series covered the potential claims, charges and lawsuits that may arise from workplace relationships.  In this installment, learn why it is imperative to adopt a company policy addressing fraternization.  Part 3 will address tips for employers to mitigate potential liability.

What Does Company Policy Say?

With Valentine’s Day around the corner, now is a good time for employers to update or create a policy governing dating among workers.  While some policies prohibit romantic relationships altogether, many employers recognize that employees will date each other regardless of policy.  In fact, they might “sneak around” to avoid violating the policy, which could create even more tension if the relationship is discovered or known only to a select few.  Moreover, strict no-dating policies may be difficult to implement and enforce, as they may not clearly define the conduct that is forbidden (e.g., does the policy prohibit socializing, dating, romantic relationships, or something else?).

Some policies interdict dating among management and staff, while others specify that there is to be no fraternization with outside third parties to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety.  Still, other organizations mandate that employees who date one another voluntarily inform the company about their relationship.

In such cases, the notification policies direct employees to report their dating relationships to Human Resources, the EEOC officer, or a member of management, and they ask employees to sign a written consent regarding the romantic relationship.  While this type of policy may seem intrusive, these documents are drafted to protect employers from unwanted complaints of future sexual harassment or retaliation.

When asking employees to sign consents, you should again advise them about the company’s sexual harassment policy and remind them about ramifications of policy violations.  Document that the employees entered into the relationship voluntarily, were counseled and – if/when the relationship ends – include a memo in their respective personnel records that the relationship ended, and the employees were reminded about the company’s sexual harassment policy.  You should require the dating parties to make certain written representations to shield the company from future claims:

  • The individuals have entered the relationship voluntarily and the relationship is consensual.
  • The employees will not engage in any conduct that makes others uncomfortable, intimidated, or creates a hostile work environment for other employees, guests, or third parties.
  • The employees do not and will not make any decisions that could impact each other’s terms and conditions of employment.
  • The employees will act professionally toward each other at all times, even after the relationship has ended.
  • The relationship will not cause unnecessary workplace disruptions or distractions or otherwise adversely impact productivity.
  • The employees will not retaliate against each other if/when the relationship ends.

Stay tuned for Part 3 for steps to take now to defend potential claims of discrimination and harassment.

 

Article by:

Mona M. Stone

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Office Romances: 3-Part Series on How to Shield Your Company from Liability Part 1

GT Law

Love is in the air – which could bring claims of sexual harassment and discrimination.  As Valentine’s Day approaches, employers should be mindful of office romances:

  • Statistics show that more than 20% of married couples met at work, yet nearly half of those employees reported that they did not know if their company had a policy on office romances.
  • According to a recent survey by Monster Worldwide, 59% of employees admitted that they have been involved in an office romance.
  • An additional 64% answered that they would be willing to do so if the opportunity arose.
  • Yet, 75% of employers do not have a policy regarding workplace relationships.
  • AshleyMadison.com (a dating site for married people looking to cheat – yikes!) reports that 46% percent of men and 37% percent of women have had an affair with a co-worker. Among these cheaters, 72% percent of women and 59% percent of men say that they had their first encounter with the affair partner at a company holiday party … which means now is the time for employers to pay attention!

In this three-part series, learn (1) the potential risks to employers from workplace relationships, (2) how to draft an office romance policy, and (3) what steps to take to head off potential litigation.  Part I addresses the negative consequences that office romances can pose to unprepared employers.

What’s the Harm?

While consensual office relationships are more commonplace than in the past, they can trigger business and legal headaches for employers when the relationship fizzles or is no longer consensual.  Moreover, fellow employees may feel resentful, jealous, uncomfortable, or intimidated (especially in relationships between a supervisor and a subordinate), leading to complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.

Importantly, claims may be brought not only by the individuals in the relationship, but even by third parties.  Complaints of “paramour favoritism” are on the rise and are being filed by employees who allege they are overlooked due to preferential treatment towards a co-worker who is engaged in a romantic relationship with the boss.  While courts differ on whether such claims are meritorious, turning a blind eye to such relationships may result in business interruption and liability.

In 2011, for example, the EEOC reported that 11,364 charges of sexual harassment were filed, and 16.3% of those were filed by men.  These charges are quite costly to employers – the EEOC recovered over $52 million in damages for sexual harassment claims in 2011.  Employers might not be able to prevent love in the office, but you can take action to mitigate potential liability.  An important initial measure is to draft a good policy depending on your company’s size, structure, business goals, and culture.  Make sure that, if you implement an office dating policy, you  enforce it uniformly and take appropriate and equal action for violations of the policy.

Watch for installments 2 and 3 to learn the dos and don’ts when drafting an office romance policy and tips for employers to avoid liability.

Article by:

Mona M. Stone

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Philadelphia Enacts Pregnancy Accommodation Law

Morgan Lewis

 

An amendment to the city’s ordinance enhances protections for nondisabled employees affected by pregnancy or childbirth and imposes greater accommodation requirements on employers.

On January 20, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed an amendment[1] to the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance (Chapter 9-1100 of The Philadelphia Code), expressly banning discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition and imposing new workplace accommodation requirements on Philadelphia employers. The amendment places Philadelphia among a growing number of jurisdictions that require employers to provide workplace accommodations to employees who are “affected by pregnancy,” regardless of whether those employees are “disabled.”

Impact of the Amendment

Unlike its federal and state counterparts—the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act—Philadelphia’s amended ordinance actually compels employers to make reasonable workplace accommodations for female employees “affected by pregnancy”—i.e., women who are pregnant or have medical conditions relating to pregnancy or childbirth—regardless of whether those employees have been “disabled” by the pregnancy. The ordinance identifies a number of possible accommodations that may be required, including restroom breaks, periodic rest for those whose jobs require that they stand for long periods of time, special assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring.

This new law imposes a significant burden on employers, requiring that they grant the requested accommodations unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the operation of the employers’ businesses. The factors to be considered in the undue hardship analysis include the following: (a) the nature and cost of the accommodations; (b) the overall financial resources of the employer’s facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, including the number of persons employed at such facility or facilities, the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodations upon the operation of the employer; (c) the overall financial resources of the employer, including the size of the employer with respect to the number of its employees and the number, type, and location of its facilities; and (d) the type of operation or operations of the employer, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce, and the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the employer.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the amendment is that it extends privileges to employees affected by pregnancy that are unavailable to other employees, including many disabled employees. For example, the law requires an employer to consider job reassignment and job restructuring for pregnant employees, even though these types of accommodations are generally not required for disabled employees under state or federal law. As such, employers with operations in Philadelphia (along with those in other jurisdictions that have recently passed heightened pregnancy accommodation laws like California,[2]Maryland,[3] New Jersey,[4] and New York City[5]) should revisit their existing reasonable accommodation policies to ensure that they are providing required accommodations for pregnant workers—even those who are healthy and not incapacitated by the pregnancy.

From a litigation perspective, the law specifies the affirmative defenses that will be available to employers facing claims under the amended ordinance. In addition to the undue-burden defense described above, an employer will have an affirmative defense if it can show that the employee “could not, with reasonable accommodations, satisfy the requisites of the job.” This language is important because it will allow employers to continue managing the performance of pregnant workers who, even with accommodation, simply cannot perform their jobs. Nonetheless, the impact of this affirmative defense remains to be seen given the amendment’s language suggesting that job restructuring and reassignment may be required accommodations.

Employees aggrieved by a violation of the amended ordinance are entitled to the same remedies that are available for other unlawful employment practices—including injunctive or other equitable relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Additionally, certain factual scenarios, such as a failure to properly respond to a request for accommodations (e.g., lactation breaks or nursing an infant), may trigger a pregnancy accommodation cause of action, as well as causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or Title VII.[6]

As mentioned above, the amendment places Philadelphia squarely in the middle of a significant legislative trend that has been gaining momentum. In the last 18 months, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York City have passed similar pregnancy accommodation laws. Several other jurisdictions are, or will soon be, considering comparable legislation. The West Virginia House of Representatives unanimously passed a similar bill on February 5, 2014, and Pennsylvania legislators announced in December 2013 that they will be introducing Pennsylvania’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the near future. In addition, a federal version of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate in May 2013 but stalled in committee. Several other states—including Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Texas—already require some type of pregnancy accommodation.

Notice Requirement

The new law requires that Philadelphia employers provide written notice—in a form and manner to be determined by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations—by April 20, 2014. The notice must be posted conspicuously in an area accessible to employees.

Moving Forward

For employers with operations in Philadelphia, the amendments to the Fair Practices Ordinance may signal that now is the time to revisit or revamp employee handbooks and train human resources and benefits employees on the new requirements in this area. Specifically, the amended ordinance will require most Philadelphia employers to overhaul their reasonable accommodation policies and train human resources professionals and managers regarding when the interactive process is triggered for employees affected by pregnancy, what steps must be followed to ensure effective engagement in that process, and when accommodations must be granted for such employees.

[1]. View the amendment here.

[2]. See our December 28, 2012 LawFlash, “New California Disability Regulations to Become Effective December 30,” available here.

[3]. See our July 1, 2013 LawFlash, “Maryland Enacts Three New Employment Laws,” available here.

[4]. See our January 10, 2014 LawFlash, “New Jersey Assembly Passes Pregnancy Discrimination Bill,” available here, and our January 27, 2014 LawFlash, “New Requirements for New Jersey Employers,” available here.

[5]. See our September 27, 2013 LawFlash, “New York City Offers Greater Protections for Pregnant Workers,” available here.

[6]. See our June 12, 2013 LawFlash, “New Developments Surrounding Lactation Discrimination,” available here.

Article by:

Sean P. Lynch

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 47: The Reporting Conundrum

MintzLogo2010_Black

 

The Affordable Care Act establishes three new, high-level, reporting requirements:

  • Code § 6051(a)(14)

Employers must report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement;

  • Code § 6055

Entities that offer minimum essential coverage (i.e., health insurance issuers, certain sponsors of self-insured plans, government agencies and other parties that provide health coverage) must report certain information about the coverage to the employee and the IRS; and

  • Code § 6056

Applicable large employers must provide detailed information relating to health insurance coverage that they offer.

The W-2 reporting rules have been in effect for a while, and I do not address them in this post. This post instead addresses Code §§ 6055 and 6056, which were originally slated to take effect in 2014, but which were subsequently delayed by one year in IRS Notice 2013-45.

The Treasury Department and IRS issued proposed regulations under both rules on September 30, 2012. (For an explanation of the proposed regulations, please see our October 21, 2013 client advisory. Although garnering far less attention than the Act’s pay-or-play rules, the rules under newly added Code §§ 6055 and 6056 should not be overlooked. Both provisions require a good deal of specific information about covered persons and the particular features of the group health plan coverage such persons are offered. Required reports must be furnished to both the government and covered individuals.

  • Under Code section 6055, plan sponsors must report to the IRS who is covered by the plans and the months in which they were covered. Plan sponsors must also provide this information to the employees who are enrolled in their plans along with additional contact information for the plan.
  • Under Code section 6056, applicable large employers must report to the IRS, and provide to affected full-time employees, information that includes:

(i) The employer’s contact information;

(ii) Whether the company offered minimum essential coverage to full-time employees and their dependents;

(iii) The months during which coverage was available;

(iv) The monthly cost to employees for the lowest self-only minimum essential coverage;

(v) The number of full-time employees during each month; and

(vi) Information about each full-time employee and the months they were covered under the plan.

Absent regulatory simplification, the costs of compiling, processing, and distributing the required reports will be substantial. But the regulators are in a difficult position, since they must remain true to the requirements of the law. The proposed regulations do offer some suggestions for simplification. For example:

  • Employers might be permitted to report coverage on IRS Form W-2, rather than requiring a separate return under Section 6055 and furnishing separate employee statements. But this approach could be used only for employees employed for the entire calendar year and only if the required contribution for the lowest-cost self-only coverage remains stable for the entire year.
  • The W-2 method could also be extended to apply in situations in which the required monthly employee contribution is below a specified threshold (e.g., 9.5% of the FPL) for a single individual, i.e. the individual cannot be eligible for the premium assistance tax credit.
  • Employers might be permitted to identify the number of full-time employees, but not report whether a particular employee offered coverage is full-time, if the employer certifies that all employees to whom it did not offer coverage during the calendar year were not full-time.

Industry comments filed in response to the proposed regulations have seized these suggestions to ask for further relief. Some commenters suggested replacing the reporting process with a certification process under which an employer could simply certify that it has made the requisite offer of coverage. Others have asked that information be provided to employees only on request, on the theory that not all employees will need to demonstrate that the employer either failed to offer coverage or that the coverage was either unaffordable or did not constitute minimum value.

While many of the comments submitted in response to the proposed regulations were both thoughtful and practical, many are also difficult to square with the terms of the statute. As a result, the most likely outcome is that the final rules under Code §§ 6055 and 6056 will look a lot like the proposed rules—which look a lot like the statute.

Article by:

Alden J. Bianchi

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Supreme Court Affirms Contractually Reduced Limitations Periods for Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Benefit Claims Date

Jackson Lewis Logo

A contractual limitations period in an ERISA disability benefits plan that required participants to bring suit within three years after “proof of loss is due” is enforceable, theU.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously. Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. et al., 134 S.Ct. 604, 187 L. Ed. 2d 529 (2013).

Whether and under what circumstances an otherwise applicable statute of limitations can be contractually shortened where a claim for benefits is made under a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 has divided the courts of appeals for years. A participant in an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA may bring a civil action under §502(a)(1)(B) to recover benefits. Courts have generally required participants to exhaust the plan’s administrative remedies before filing these suits. ERISA, however, does not specify a statute of limitations for filing such a suit.

Heimeshoff is significant for three reasons. First, implicit in the Court’s decision is the recognition that “reasonable” contractual limitations periods are generally enforceable for ERISA claims. According to the Court, “in the absence of a controlling statute to the contrary, a provision in a contract may validly limit, between the parties, the time for bringing an action on such contract to a period less than that prescribed in the general statute of limitations, provided that the shorter period itself shall be a reasonable period” (quoting Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 608 (1947)).

Second, the decision also appears to assume, if not specifically hold, that contractual limitations periods for insured ERISA plans (at least where the limitations period is in the insurance policy) are subject to state laws that expressly prohibit contractual limitations periods shorter than a defined period (as opposed to state laws that merely set a default minimum statute of limitations that applies only in the absence of a contractual limitations period).

Finally, the decision overturns the law in certain circuits holding a contractual limitations period cannot begin to run until available administrative remedies have been exhausted. Heimeshoff should not have any application to claims of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA; it is limited to ERISA benefits claim matters. It is certainly possible that the limitations Heimeshoff applies will have the effect of increasing ERISA fiduciary claims actions, although the federal courts are wary of benefits claim cases denominated as ERISA fiduciary breach matters.

The Court, referring to state insurance statutes, pointed out that “the vast majority of States require certain insurance policies to include 3-year limitations periods that run from the date proof of loss is due.” On the theory that federal law determines when an ERISA cause of action accrues, some circuits previously held the time for bringing the action does not begin to run until the administrative review process has been completed. In Heimeshoff, the Supreme Court held that such a hard and fast rule is inappropriate. Absent unreasonable limitations barring a participant’s ability to assert a claim, it said, the terms of the written plan are paramount and should be enforced. The new rule is more fact-specific. The contractual limitations period, including its commencement date as specified in the policy, should be enforced unless the claimant is left with an unreasonably short period to file suit after the administrative review process ends. The Court recognized that starting the limitations period at the point “proof of loss is due,” which necessarily is before the completion of the administrative review process, “will, in practice, shorten the contractual limitations period.” But the Court nevertheless held that such a requirement is enforceable, provided the claimant is left with a “reasonable” period of time to file suit.

The Court did not indicate what remaining period of time might be unreasonable. Because the plaintiff in Heimeshoff had about one year left to file a complaint following the completion of the review of her claim, 12 months presumably is not “too short” in the run of cases. Relying upon Heimeshoff, a federal District Court in New Jersey dismissed an ERISA benefits claim as untimely, finding a nine-month residual period for filing suit after exhaustion of administrative remedies provided the plaintiff with “ample opportunity to seek judicial review.” Barriero v. NJ BAC Health Fund, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181277 at *12-*13 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2013).

In Heimeshoff, the Supreme Court recognized that the district courts retain the discretion to use appropriate traditional doctrines to free claimants from a contractual limitations provision “in the rare cases where internal review prevents participants from bringing §502(a)(1)(B) actions within the contractual period.” The Court observed, “[i]f the administrator’s conduct causes a participant to miss the deadline for judicial review, waiver or estoppel may prevent the administrator from invoking the limitations provision as a defense.” The Court also suggested that the doctrine of “equitable tolling” may apply “[t]o the extent the participant has diligently pursued both internal review and judicial review but was prevented from filing suit by extraordinary circumstances.” (Emphasis added.) These cases often include allegations of fraud and other extraordinary facts and are likely to define the limits of Heimeshoff.

Article by:

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Are Union-Free Strikes Protected? The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) Thinks So.

Michael Best Logo

 

In June 2013, we issued a client alert discussing the efforts of unions and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to target the primarily union-free big box retailer and fast food industries. After describing how Target had come under scrutiny from the NLRB, the client alert detailed how the United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) and the UFCW-backed group “OUR Walmart” had been coordinating strikes and filing charges with the NLRB against Walmart. The client alert then foreshadowed: “[g]iven the Board’s recent penchant for union activism, do not be surprised if it takes a close look at Walmart’s policies and practices in the coming months.”

As predicted, the Board filed a consolidated complaint against Walmart on January 14, 2014 alleging the union-free retailer violated workers’ rights in response to coordinated strikes across 13 states. The complaint alleges dozens of Walmart supervisors and one corporate executive threatened, disciplined, surveilled, and/or terminated more than 60 workers in response to the union-free strikes.

The complaint is significant for two reasons: (1) the Board is taking the position that union-free workers have a protectable right to strike; and (2) the Board is testing its position against the nation’s largest employer. The Board views the union-free strikes as a form of protected concerted activity, and its press release states that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees employees the right to “act together to try to improve their wages and working conditions with or without a union.” The complaint alleges Walmart violated the NLRA by maintaining a policy that treats absences for participation in strikes as unexcused. The complaint also details alleged retaliatory disciplinary actions taken by Walmart supervisors at particular store locations, though many of the listed locations involved only a single worker being absent.

From an employer perspective, the Board’s position raises many questions. For example, how is a supervisor to know whether a non-union worker is participating in a “strike” or just absent? Can a single worker go on strike, or is there a minimum number of strikers for the activity to be “concerted”? Can strikers be permanently replaced? Are “intermittent” strikes prohibited? It is easy to see why union-free strikes create tough questions for union-free employers.

The Board’s actions against Walmart are worth watching as they come amidst a larger backdrop of worker protests and political debates over minimum wage and working conditions that are likely to remain in the spotlight for the foreseeable future. How courts ultimately grapple with the Board’s position and the resulting questions could have far-reaching effects on the labor market in 2014 and beyond.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP