Category: Labor & Employment

Labor & Employment Law Forum 2012

EVENT HAS BEEN POSTPONED – new dates soon!

 

 

 

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming

Labor & Employment Law Forum

March 21-22, 2012
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
Washington, DC

The Labor & Employment Law Forum provides a unique opportunity for retail executives involved with labor and employment issues to come together to hear from legal experts, fellow retailers and government insiders on the critical employment issues you grapple with every day.

Ensuring compliance with case law and new regulations on employment and labor issues is increasingly difficult for retailers. Issues involving wage and hour, bargaining units, social media usage, and more are continuously changing the retail workplace and your relationship with and obligations to your employees. Through focused sessions and strategic networking, you will gain the tools to address the myriad workplace issues your company faces.

Labor & Employment Law Forum 2012

Labor & Employment Law Forum

March 21-22, 2012
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
Washington, DC

The Labor & Employment Law Forum provides a unique opportunity for retail executives involved with labor and employment issues to come together to hear from legal experts, fellow retailers and government insiders on the critical employment issues you grapple with every day.

Ensuring compliance with case law and new regulations on employment and labor issues is increasingly difficult for retailers. Issues involving wage and hour, bargaining units, social media usage, and more are continuously changing the retail workplace and your relationship with and obligations to your employees. Through focused sessions and strategic networking, you will gain the tools to address the myriad workplace issues your company faces.

Finally the Final … 408(b)(2) Regulation

Recently The National Law Review published an article by Fred Reish and Bruce L. Ashton of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP regarding The DOL Service Provider Fee Disclosure Regulations:

The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued the long-anticipated final service provider fee disclosure regulation (the “408(b)(2) regulation”). (A complete copy of the final regulation and its preamble is at http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/files/ftpupload/pdf/408b2reg. pdf) In this Alert, we describe what the amendment says; in a subsequent piece, we will explain the impact on various service providers.

>   The extension of the compliance date from April 1, 2012 to July 1, 2012

>   The fact that service providers are not required to provide a summary of the disclosures, though the DOL provided a sample “guide” that is not mandatory

>   The addition of the requirement to describe the arrangement between the service provider and the payer of indirect compensation

>   Limited relief for disclosures for brokerage accounts and similar arrangements

>   Clarification that electronic disclosure of the disclosures is permitted

>   Relief from the disclosure requirements for “frozen” 403(b) contracts

>   The requirement that plan sponsors terminate the relationship with a service provider who fails or refuses to provide information on request

Background

The 408(b)(2) regulation requires most service providers to retirement plans – including pension, profit sharing, 401(k) and 403(b) plans subject to ERISA – to make written disclosure of their services, fiduciary and/or RIA status and total compensation. The regulation was first proposed in 2007, was issued as an “interim final” regulation in July 2010 and has now been finalized with today’s release.

In light of its “interim final” status, it had been widely anticipated that amendments to the regulation would be issued; and the DOL invited comments on several issues in the 2010 release. In August of this year, the DOL publicly announced that it was working on an amendment and as a result extended the compliance date. Now, in issuing the final rule, the compliance date has once again been extended, though for only three months (i.e., July 1, 2012). Given the scope of some of the changes, this may not be sufficient time for covered service providers to develop and disseminate the required information on an orderly basis…which could result in errors.

Because of the delayed compliance date, some service providers have deferred starting the process of preparing the forms and creating the systems needed to comply with the disclosure requirements. Some did so to avoid having to make changes and others may have hoped for a more extended delay. That is not going to happen, and service providers should circle July 1, 2012 (barely five months away) on their calendars to make sure they are in full compliance by that date for existing clients and that they are prepared to comply with advance disclosures for any new clients.

The Final Regulation

The most important changes in the newly released amendment are:

  • Covered Plan – The definition of covered plan now excludes annuity contracts and custodial accounts in 403(b) plans that were issued to employees before January 1, 2009, where no additional contributions have been made and the contract is fully vested and enforceable by the employee.
  • Indirect Compensation – The final regulation has made a fairly significant change in the disclosure of indirect compensation (that is, compensation received from a source other than the plan or plan sponsor). The disclosure must now include both identification of the payer and a description of the arrangement between the payer and the covered service provider, affiliate or subcontractor pursuant to which the indirect compensation is paid. There is limited relief for disclosures related to brokerage accounts and similar arrangements.
  • Investment Information – The regulation modifies the information that must be provided by recordkeepers and others to better track the disclosures required in the participant disclosure regulation. It also adds a requirement to disclose information that is within the control of (or reasonably available to) the covered service provider and that is required for the plan administrator to comply with the participant disclosure regulation.
  • Form of Disclosure – There was speculation that the DOL would require service providers to include a summary of the disclosures and a “roadmap” for finding the disclosures in the documents provided. It did not do so and has indicated that it will be issuing a proposed rule regarding a summary or roadmap (now referred to as a “guide”) requirement in the future. In the meantime, the DOL did provide a sample guide that may, but is not required, to be used. That said, in the preamble, the DOL states, “Similarly, to the extent a responsible plan fiduciary experiences difficulty finding and reviewing the required disclosures in lengthy, technical, or multiple disclosure documents received from a covered service provider pursuant to the requirements of the final rule, the fiduciary should consider requesting assistance from the covered service provider, for example, discussing with the covered service provider the feasibility and cost of using the attached sample guide.”
  • Manner of Delivery – The final regulation clarifies that nothing in the regulation limits the ability to use electronic media.
  • Change Notice – The interim final regulation required that changes in the information previously provided had to be given to the responsible plan fiduciary not later than 60 days after the service provider becomes aware of it. This “update requirement” applied to all disclosures, including investment-related information. The final rule changes this requirement to say that the deadline for disclosure of investment-related information is “at least annually.” In other words, for this type of information, the updating requirement is now annual.
  • Reporting and Disclosure Response – The interim final rule required a service provider to give information necessary for a plan administrator to comply with the plan’s reporting and disclosure requirements under ERISA within 60 days after a written request. This has been changed to say that the information must be provided (in response to a written request) reasonably in advance of when the plan administrator must comply with its reporting obligation.
  • Compensation Definition – The final regulation amends the definition of compensation to permit a service provider to provide a “reasonable and good faith” estimate of compensation if it is not otherwise readily able to describe its compensation, though the covered service provider in this case is also required to explain the methods and assumptions used for the estimate.
  • Plan Fiduciary Relief – The regulation provides an exemption for plan fiduciaries if the service provider fails to provide required disclosures so long as various requirements are met. The exemption originally stated that if the service provider failed to provide the information upon request, the plan fiduciary was required to consider whether to continue the relationship with the service provider. The final rule now requires the plan fiduciary to terminate the relationship if the service provider fails to provide requested information relating to future services.

Finally, the compliance effective date for the participant disclosures has also been pushed back. For calendar year plans, the initial disclosures of plan and investment information must be provided by August 30, 2012, and the first quarterly expense statement is required by November 14, 2012 (covering the third quarter).

We will be discussing the impact of the changes and the compliance issues in a month or so in another, more detailed bulletin. However, we wanted to get this information to you as quickly as possible.

©2012 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The Inside Job: Can Employees Walk Out The Door With Your Company's IP?

Recently in The National Law Review was an article by Katie L. Clark, Rohan Massey, and Hiroshi Sheraton of McDermott Will & Emery regarding IP Security:

With the economic downturn forcing redundancies, most employers are aware that the Q1 period brings an increase in employee movement. But have employers considered how much value could be walking out the door when an employee leaves? In today’s “knowledge economy”, businesses increasingly understand the value of intangible assets in the form of information.  Yet few businesses give thought to how and where those assets reside, or consider how much can be lost or passed to a competitor when employees move on.

The ease with which knowledge can be taken by employees has increased exponentially in recent times.  USB drives are now large enough to store literally millions of documents and cloud computing can provide limitless secure storage.  The increase in remote working also allows employees to download your documents and information in the privacy of their own homes.

There is also a growing international market for transferable knowledge, making the temptation even greater for employees to maximise their value to their new employer.  Emerging economies, with different laws, regulations, and cultural values, provide a ready market into which intellectual capital can be dispersed.

This issue affects every industry.  A number of high profile cases in the United States and China have seen former employees jailed for theft of trade secrets relating to consumer electronics and financial trading software, but every business has a wealth of internal knowledge that is used to give it a competitive advantage over its rivals.  Business plans, presentations, strategies, customer lists, market positioning, and protocols and procedures are all valuable assets that can find their way to new employers.

Most worryingly, this movement of information is not confined to “rogue” employees.  Many salespeople will claim that their address books of contacts belong to them, not to their employer.  Each type and level of employee and each type of business is likely to have a different understanding of what belongs to the company.  In addition, international cultural differences play an enormous role in determining where employees perceive the boundary to be between legitimate and illicit use of information.

So, how do you distinguish between what an employee is free to take away and what should remain with the business before it’s too late?  What procedures should be in place to maximise the intangible value retained by the business when employees move?  To what extent do data protection and privacy laws permit monitoring of employees’ activities?  What procedures are available when employees are suspected of taking valuable information and/or passing it to competitors?

In 2012, McDermott will be running a number of IP- and employment-focused seminars to provide an overview of how intellectual property and employment laws can help your company to protect it, and the policies and procedures that can be used to mitigate value walking out the door.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

The Employee Benefits Landscape in 2012: PART I

Kristy N. Britsch of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP recently had an article about Employee Benefits published in The National Law Review:

As we start a new year, plan sponsors and plan administrators should be aware of important upcoming changes affecting employee benefits in 2012. This Part I discusses changes impacting qualified plans, including recently released final 408(b)(2) regulations regarding fee disclosure requirements. Part II will discuss changes impacting health and welfare plans.


REMEMBER: The following amendments were due by December 31, 2011. If you are not sure as to whether these amendments have been adopted, please contact one of our benefits attorneys.mployee benefits in 2012. This Part I discusses changes impacting qualified plans, including recently released final 408(b)(2) regulations regarding fee disclosure requirements. Part II will discuss changes impacting health and welfare plans.

A. Required Minimum Distribution Suspension Amendment

The Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act (“WRERA”), enacted in 2008, and among its other provisions, waived required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) from defined contribution plans (i.e., 401(k) plans, ESOPs, profit sharing plans, etc.) for the 2009 calendar year. Employers/plan sponsors must have adopted this amendment by the last day of the 2011 plan year (i.e., December 31, 2011 for calendar year plans)

B. Code Section 436 Funding Based Restrictions on Defined Benefit Plans

Section 436 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) (added to the Code by the Pension Protection Act of 2006) imposes restrictions on benefit distributions and accruals for underfunded single-employer defined benefit plans. The restrictions that apply are determined by the plan’s Adjusted Funding Target Attainment Percentage (“AFTAP”). If a plan’s AFTAP is less than 80%, the plan cannot be amended to increase benefits. If a plan’s AFTAP is less than 80%, but at least 60%, the portion of benefit that may be paid in a single lump sum or other prohibited payment is limited. If the AFTAP is less than 60%, the plan may not pay any lump sum distribution or other accelerated payments. Employers/plan sponsors must have adopted this amendment by the last day of the 2011 plan year (i.e., December 31, 2011 for calendar year plans).

QUALIFIED PLAN COMPLIANCE ITEMS IN 2012

Plan Restatements for Cycle B Plans (IRS Determination Letter Program)

For employers with an employer identification number (“EIN”) ending in a two (2) or a seven (7) and who sponsor individually designed plans, the period to restate a qualified plan and submit the plan with the IRS for a favorable determination letter began on February 1, 2012 and ends on January 31, 2013.

Cost of Living Adjustments

Plan sponsors should review the cost of living adjustments (“COLA”) to determine what, if any, changes must be considered.

2010

2011

2012
Annual compensation for plan purposes 
(for plan years beginning in calendar year) 401(a)(17)		 $245,000 $245,000 $250,000
Defined benefit plan, basic limit 
(for limitation years ending in calendar year) 415(b)		 $195,000 $195,000 $200,000
Defined contribution plan, basic limit
(for limitation years ending in calendar year) 415(c)		 $49,000 $49,000 $50,000
401(k) / 403(b) plan, elective deferrals
(for taxable years beginning in calendar year) 402(g)		 $16,500 $16,500 $17,000
457 plan, elective deferrals
(for taxable years beginning in calendar year)		 $16,500 $16,500 $17,000
401(k) / 403(b) /457, catch-up deferrals 
(for taxable years beginning in calendar year) (Age 50+) 414(v)		 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
SIMPLE plan, elective deferrals
(for calendar years) 408(p)		 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500
SIMPLE plan, catch-up deferrals
(for taxable years beginning in calendar year) (Age 50+) 408(p)		 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
IRA contribution limit
408(a)		 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
IRA catch-up contribution 
(Age 50+)		 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Highly Compensated Employee 414(q) $110,000 $110,000 $115,000
SEP Coverage 408(p)
(Compensation limit)		 $550 $550 $550
FICA Covered Compensation $106,800 $106,800 $110,100
Key Employee $160,000 $160,000 $165,000
ESOP 5- Year
Distribution period
409(o)(1)(c)(ii)		 $985,000 $985,000 $1,015,000

Fee Disclosures Requirements: Plan Level Disclosures and Participant Level Disclosures

Plan administrators will be subjected to two new disclosure rules this year. One rule affects disclosures made at the plan level and the second rule affects disclosures made at the participant level. Under the final ERISA Section 408(b)(2) regulations, issued by the Department of Labor on February 2, 2012, the plan level disclosures take effect on July 1, 2012 (extended from its April 1, 2012 effective date). The participant level disclosures take effect August 30, 2012 (extended from its May 31, 2012 effective date).

A. Plan Level Disclosures

Effective July 1, 2012, “covered service providers” must disclose to an ERISA plan fiduciary any compensation that they or their affiliates receive for services related to an ERISA covered plan. This rule applies to both defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. If a covered service provider fails to provide the required disclosures, the plan’s service contract or arrangement with that covered service provider will not be considered “reasonable” under ERISA and thus, will be a prohibited transaction subject to penalties and which could expose plan fiduciaries to liability.

To provide background, ERISA Section 408(b)(2) requires plan fiduciaries to ensure that contracts or arrangements with their service providers, and the compensation paid under such arrangement, is “reasonable” in order for the arrangement to be exempt from ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules. To ensure that compensation paid by a plan is “reasonable,” the new fee disclosure regulations impose a new disclosure obligation on service providers.

ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(C) prohibits the “furnishing of goods, services or facilities between a plan and a party in interest.” Because a “party in interest” includes any party that provides services to a plan, service arrangements generally are prohibited unless they qualify for an exemption. ERISA Section 408(b)(2) provides such an exemption by permitting a party in interest to provide “services” to a plan if:

  1. the contract or arrangement is reasonable; and
  2. the services are necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan; and
  3. no more than reasonable compensation is paid for the services.

A covered service provider includes any service provider that enters into a contract or arrangement with an ERISA covered plan and expects to receive at least $1,000 in direct or indirect compensation. The types of covered service providers subject to these new rules include the following:

  1. Fiduciaries and investment advisors.
  2. Recordkeeping or brokerage services that allow participants to self-direct the investment of his or her accounts.
  3. Certain other service providers who receive indirect compensation. Indirect compensation means compensation received from a source other than the plan, the plan sponsor, the covered service provider, or an affiliate or subcontractor. This category includes accounting, auditing, actuarial, appraisal, custodial, banking, insurance, investment advisory, legal, valuation, or third-party administration services.

Covered service providers must provide plans with a description of the services provided to the plan, a description of direct and indirect compensation that the covered service provider expects to receive (includes commissions, finders fees and Rule 12b-1 fees) from the plan, a statement of the covered service provider’s status (such as registered investment advisor or fiduciary), and a description of the fees that will be charged against the investments under the plan.

One significant change made by the final 408(b)(2) regulations is that the definition of covered plan now excludes frozen 403(b) annuity contracts and custodial accounts that were issued to employees prior to January 1, 2009 (i.e., 403(b) plans where no additional employer contributions have been made and the contract is fully vested and enforceable by the employee). For more information on the final 408(b)(2) regulations, please contact one of our benefits attorneys.

B. Participant Level Disclosures

As stated above, the extended effective date of the plan level disclosures affects compliance with the participant level disclosures. Calendar year plans will now be required to make their initial annual disclosure to participants no later than August 30, 2012 and provide their initial quarterly statements no later than November 14, 2012.

Under the participant level disclosure requirements, plan administrators of retirement plans with participant directed accounts (such as 401(k) plans) will be required to disclose to participants (including employees who are eligible to participate) the fees and expenses associated with the funds in that retirement plan. This increased disclosure obligation includes “plan related disclosures” and “investment related disclosures.”

Investment Related Disclosures

Plan administrators must provide participants and beneficiaries with performance and investment fee information for each investment option available under the plan, on or before the date that a participant could first direct his or her investments, and annually thereafter. The investment related information that must be disclosed includes the following:

  1. Identifying information for each investment option under the plan, including the name of each investment option and the type or category of the investment option (i.e., large or small cap, money market fund, etc.).
  2. Performance data and benchmark information for each investment option available under the plan.
  3. Fee and expense information for each investment option.
  4. Website address and a glossary of investment related terms so that participants can access additional information about each investment option available under the plan.
  5. 1-year, 5-year and 10-year investment performance returns and applicable benchmark returns for each investment option that does not have a fixed rate of return. For investment options with a fixed return, the annual rate of return and the term of the investment must be disclosed. The disclosure must also include a statement that an investment’s past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance and that the rate may be adjusted.

Investment related information must be provided to participants and beneficiaries in a chart (or similar scheme) that allows participants or beneficiaries to compare information about each of the investment options offered under the plan. The chart must include the date, the name, address and telephone number of the plan sponsor (or its designee), and an explanation that additional investment related information about the plan’s investment options can be accessed via the web, and a description of how participants and beneficiaries can obtain (free of charge) paper copies of the information contained on the website.

In addition to the information that must be automatically provided to participants, plans must also provide the following information to participants upon request:

  1. Prospectuses for any SEC registered investment options.
  2. Financial statements and reports, such as shareholder reports.
  3. Share value of each investment option and valuation date.
  4. A list of assets that constitute the investment alternatives under the plan.

Plan Related Disclosures

Plan administrators must provide to each participant and beneficiary, on or before the date in which a participant can first direct his or her investments and annually thereafter, certain plan information, which may be categorized into three areas: (1) general plan information, (2) administrative expense information, and (3) individual expense information. If there is a change to this information, the updated information must be provided at least 30 days, but no more than 90 days, in advance of the effective date of the change.

  1. General Plan Information: General plan information must be provided to participants and beneficiaries explaining the structure and mechanics of the plan, such as an explanation of the circumstances under which a participant or beneficiary may give investment instructions; an explanation of any limitations on such instructions, including transfer restrictions to or from a designated investment option; a list of investment options available under the plan; the identification of any investment managers, and a description of any “brokerage windows” or brokerage accounts that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investment options beyond those offered by the plan.
  2. Administrative Expense Information: Plan administrators must provide participants and beneficiaries with an explanation of fees and expenses for general plan administrative services (e.g., legal, accounting or recordkeeping costs that may be charged against participants’ accounts on a plan-wide basis) and an explanation of the basis on which such charges will be allocated (e.g., pro rata) to each individual account under the plan. Administrative expenses must be reported to participants in a quarterly statement.
  3. Individual Expense Information: Plan administrators must provide to participants and beneficiaries an explanation of any fees and expenses that may be charged to an individual’s account based on an individual basis (not plan-wide basis). This includes costs associated with fees and expenses for processing plan loans or qualified domestic relations orders (“QDROs”), fees associated with investment advice that may be rendered, or transfer fees. Similar to the administrative expenses, individual expenses must be disclosed to participants in a quarterly statement.

In light of the new fee disclosure requirements, at both the plan level and participant level, we urge plan sponsors to begin thinking about the compensation paid to covered service providers as part of its fiduciary review. We also urge plan sponsors and to begin thinking about participant communication strategies with respect to the new participant disclosures. If you have any questions about your “fiduciary review” or about this alert, please contact one our benefits attorneys.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

DOL Proposes New FMLA Regulations on Military Family Leave

Recently in The National Law Review was an article regarding New FMLA Regulations written by the Labor & Employment Practice of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP:

Proposed rules impact exigency leave and military caregiver leave and include clarifications on increments of intermittent leave.

On January 31, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) made public proposed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations that attempt to align existing regulations with two statutory amendments passed in 2009. The DOL’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addresses the coverage of military caregiver and exigency leaves and revamps eligibility requirements for certain airline industry employees. It also proposes changes to other FMLA regulations, although it does not contain the kind of groundbreaking regulatory changes issued in 2008. Nevertheless, the proposed changes do contain important clarifications to existing law that, if finalized, will impact employers.

Background on FMLA Amendments

As most employers are now well aware, the FMLA was amended in January 2008 to provide two types of military family leave for FMLA-eligible employees:

  • “Exigency leave”: A 12-week entitlement for eligible family members of National Guard and Reserves servicemembers to deal with exigencies related to a call to active duty.
  • “Military caregiver leave”: A 26-week entitlement for eligible family members to care for seriously ill or injured servicemembers of the regular Armed Forces, National Guard, and Reserves.

Less than a year later, Congress once again amended the FMLA. Through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY 2010 NDAA), P.L. No. 111-84, Congress expanded both types of military family leave by doing the following:

  • Expanding the FMLA’s military caregiver leave entitlement to include veterans with serious injuries or illnesses who are receiving medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy if the veterans were members of the Armed Forces at any time during the period of five years preceding the date of the medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy. Veterans had not been covered under existing law.
  • Expanding the exigency leave entitlement to include family members of the regular Armed Forces deployed to a foreign country who were not entitled to exigency leave under existing law.[1]
  • Extending the availability of military caregiver leave for current members of the Armed Forces to include a preexisting serious injury or illness that was aggravated by active duty service.

FY 2010 NDAA did not include an effective date, so these changes were presumed to be effective on October 28, 2009. The DOL, however, has now taken the position that employers are not required to provide employees with military caregiver leave to care for a veteran until the DOL defines, through regulation, a qualifying serious injury or illness of a veteran. Thus, according to the DOL, until the regulations are finalized, any time provided voluntarily by employers under this provision cannot count to reduce an employee’s FMLA entitlement. Because the statute did not have a delayed effective date for this provision, however, it is not clear whether a court would agree with this approach.

Later in 2009, Congress also passed the Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act (AFCTCA), Public Law 111-119, to provide an alternate eligibility requirement for airline flight crew employees.

Now, more than two years after the passage of the 2009 amendments, the DOL has issued its NPRM to promulgate rules related to the FY 2010 NDAA and AFCTCA. The public comment period on these proposed rules will close 60 days after the NPRM is officially published in theFederal Register.

A summary of the key proposals follow.

Proposals Relating to Qualifying Exigency Leave

Definition of Active Duty

§ 825.126(a)

The DOL proposes important amendments that help clarify what kind of service qualifies for exigency leave under the FMLA. Specifically, the proposal would replace the existing definition of “active duty” with two new definitions: “covered active duty” as it applies to the Regular Armed Forces and “covered active duty” as it applies to the Reserves. The DOL believes that this change will “more accurately reflect the fact that there are limitations on the types of active duty that can give rise to qualifying exigency leave.”

The proposed definition of “covered active duty” as it relates to the Regular Armed Forces comes as no surprise, given the mandate of the FY 2010 NDAA. Simply put, a member of the Regular Armed Forces meets the definition of “covered active duty” when deployed with the Armed Forces in a foreign country.

The proposed definition of “covered active duty” as it relates to Reserve members, however, is a bit more nuanced. Proposed Section 825.126(a)(2) defines “covered active duty or call to covered active duty” status for a member of the Reserve components as duty under a call or order to active duty during the deployment of the member to a foreign country under a federal call or order to active duty in support of a contingency operation. While the FY 2010 NDAA struck the term “contingency operations” from the FMLA, the DOL takes the position that it will continue to require members of the Reserve components to be called to duty in support of a contingency operation in order for their family members to be entitled to qualifying exigency.

That means that, if the proposal is adopted, employers would need to offer exigency leave only to those Reserve members who are (1) called to duty in support of a contingency operation when that call is (2) in a foreign country.

Exigency Leave for Childcare and School Activities

§ 825.126(a)(3)

The current regulations allow eligible employees to take qualifying exigency leave to arrange childcare or attend certain school activities for a military member’s son or daughter. The proposed regulations would place new limits on this type of leave. Specifically, if the proposal becomes effective, the military member must be the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee requesting leave in order for the employee to qualify for the leave under the DOL’s proposed amendment to the regulation. The child in question could be “the military member’s biological, adopted, or foster child, stepchild, legal ward, or child for whom the military member stands in loco parentis, who is either under age 18 or age 18 or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability at the time that FMLA leave is to commence.”

For example, the employee may be the mother of the military member and may need qualifying exigency childcare and school activities leave for the military member’s child. Under this proposal, the child for whom childcare leave is sought need not be a child of the employee requesting leave.

Exigency Leave for Rest and Recuperation

§ 825.126(a)(6)

Current regulations allow an eligible employee to take up to five days of leave to spend time with a military member on rest and recuperation leave during a period of deployment. The DOL proposes to expand the maximum duration of rest and recuperation qualifying exigency leave from five to 15 days, noting that the leave remains limited to the actual amount of time granted to the military member.

The proposal also clarifies that employers may request a copy of the member’s rest and recuperation leave orders or other military documentation to certify the need for leave.

Proposals Relating to Military Caregiver Leave

Certification Provisions for Caregiver Leave

§ 825.310

The current regulations limit the type of healthcare providers authorized to certify a serious injury or illness for military caregiver leave to providers affiliated with the Department of Defense (DOD) (e.g., a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or DOD-TRICARE provider). The proposed regulations would eliminate this distinction and would allow any healthcare provider that is authorized under Section 825.125 to certify a serious health condition under the FMLA to also certify a serious injury or illness under the military caregiver provisions.

Because of this change, the DOL also proposes to remove the prohibition on second and third opinions on certifications of military caregiver leaves—at least as it relates to non-DOD/VA providers. That is, the DOL proposes in Section 825.310(d) to provide that second and third opinions are not permitted when the certification has been completed by one of the types of DOD/VA authorized healthcare providers identified in Section 825.310(a)(1)-(4), but second and third opinions are permittedwhen the certification has been completed by a healthcare provider that is not one of the types identified in Section 825.310(a)(1)-(4).

Definition of Covered Veteran for Caregiver Leave

§ 825.127

Since the current regulations do not define “covered servicemember” with regard to veterans, the DOL plans to define “covered veteran” as an individual who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable at any time during the five-year period prior to the first date the eligible employee takes FMLA leave to care for the covered veteran.

That is, a veteran will be considered a covered veteran under FMLA if he or she was a member of the Armed Forces within the five-year period immediately preceding the date the requested leave is to begin. If the leave commences within the five-year period, the employee may continue leave for the applicable “single 12-month period,” even if it extends beyond the five-year period. This interpretation may exclude veterans of previous conflicts (Gulf War veterans) and may exclude certain veterans of the War in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, depending on the veteran’s discharge date and the date the eligible employee’s leave is to begin.

Definition of Serious Injury or Illness

§ 825.127

In the NPRM, for both current members of the Armed Forces and covered veterans, a serious injury or illness that existed before the beginning of the military member’s active duty and was aggravated by serving in the line of duty on active duty includes both conditions that were noted at the time of entrance into active service and conditions that the military was unaware of at the time of entrance into active service but that are later determined to have existed at that time. A preexisting injury or illness will generally be considered to have been aggravated by service in the line of duty on active duty where there is an increase in the severity of such injury or illness during service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in severity is due to the natural progression of the injury or illness.

In addition, and because the FY 2010 NDAA requires the DOL to define a qualifying serious injury or illness for a veteran, the DOL proposes a new Section 825.127(c)(2) that would define serious injury or illness for a covered veteran with three alternative definitions set out in paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(iii).

  • Definition 1: Proposed Section 825.127(c)(2)(i) defines a serious injury or illness of a covered veteran as a serious injury or illness of a current servicemember, as defined in Section 825.127(c)(1), that continues after the servicemember becomes a veteran. Thus, if a veteran suffered a serious injury or illness when he or she was an active member of the Armed Forces and that same injury or illness continues after the member leaves the Armed Forces and becomes a veteran, the injury or illness will continue to qualify as a serious injury or illness warranting military caregiver leave.
  • Definition 2: Proposed Section 825.127(c)(2)(ii) defines a serious injury or illness for a covered veteran as a physical or mental condition for which the covered veteran has received a VA Service Related Disability Rating (VASRD) of 50% or higher and such VASRD rating is based, in whole or part, on the condition precipitating the need for caregiver leave. The DOL’s review indicates that a VASRD disability rating of 50% or higher encompasses disabilities or conditions such as amputations, severe burns, post traumatic stress syndrome, and severe traumatic brain injuries. However, the DOL notes that there are injuries that do not qualify as creating a total disability under the VASRD system that will qualify as a serious injury or illness for military caregiver leave. For example, burns resulting in distortion or disfigurement (see 38 C.F.R. § 4.118) or psychological disorders resulting from stressful events (see 38 C.F.R. § 4.129) occurring in the line of duty on active duty may not result in a VASRD rating of 60% or higher, but nonetheless may be severe enough to substantially impair a veteran’s ability to work and therefore should be considered qualifying injuries or illnesses. The DOL is particularly concerned that military caregiver leave be available to family members of veterans suffering from, or receiving treatment for, such injuries or illnesses, which may include continuing or follow-up treatment for burns, including skin grafts or other surgeries, and amputations, including prosthetic fittings, occupational therapy, and similar care.
  • Definition 3: Proposed Section 825.127(c)(2)(iii) is the third alternative definition of a serious injury or illness for a covered veteran; it covers injuries and illnesses that are not technically within the definitions proposed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii), but are of similar severity. The DOL proposes to define a serious injury or illness for a covered veteran in the third alternative as a physical or mental condition that either substantially impairs the veteran’s ability to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of a service-connected disability, or would do so absent treatment. This proposed definition is intended to replicate the VASRD 50% disability rating standard under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) for situations in which the veteran does not have a service-related disability rating from the VA. The DOL expects that, when making determinations of serious injury or illness under this proposed definition, private healthcare providers will do so in the same way they make similar determinations for Social Security Disability claims and Workers’ Compensation claims. The DOL stresses that this definition is meant to comprehensively encompass traumatic brain injuries, post traumatic stress disorder, and other such conditions that may not manifest until sometime after the member has become a veteran.

Additionally, the DOL seeks comments on whether it should make a rule that veterans who qualify for enrollment in VA’s Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers automatically meet the requirement of having a serious injury or illness.

Proposals Affecting Airline Flight Crews

Effective December 21, 2009, the AFCTCA provides that an airline flight crew employee will meet the hours of service eligibility requirement if he or she has worked or been paid for not less than 60% of the applicable total monthly guarantee (or its equivalent) and has worked or been paid for not less than 504 hours (not including personal commute time or time spent on vacation, medical, or sick leave) during the previous 12 months. Airline flight crew employees continue to be subject to the FMLA’s other eligibility requirements.

The DOL proposal includes provisions to align existing regulations with the passage of the AFCTCA. The proposal also does the following:

  • Defines monthly guarantees for airline employees and “line holders” (e.g., flight crew employees who are not on reserve status). For airline employees who are on reserve status, the applicable monthly guarantee means the number of hours for which an employer has agreed to pay the employee for any given month. For line holders, the applicable monthly guarantee is the minimum number of hours for which an employer has agreed to schedule such employee for any given month.
  • Defines how to calculate “hours worked” and “hours paid.”  Airline flight crew employees may become eligible under the FMLA (as amended by the AFCTCA) if they have either the required number of “hours worked” or “hours paid.” The DOL proposes to base the number of hours that an airline flight crew employee has worked on the employee’s duty hours during the previous 12-month period. Hours paid, according to the DOL, are routinely tracked by most airlines’ payroll systems.
  • Adds recordkeeping requirements for employers of airline flight crews. The requirements include all the records required of other employers under the FMLA, plus any records or documents that specify the applicable monthly guarantee for each type of employee to whom the guarantee applies, including any relevant collective bargaining agreements or employer policy documents that establish the applicable monthly guarantee, as well as records of hours scheduled, in order to be able to apply the leave calculation principles contained in proposed Section 825.205(d).

Other Proposed Changes Universal to the FMLA

Increments of Intermittent FMLA Leave

§ 825.205

The current Section 825.205(a) defines the minimum increment of FMLA leave to be used when taken intermittently or on a reduced schedule as an increment no greater than the shortest period of time that the employer uses to account for other forms of leave, provided that it is not greater than one hour. The DOL intends to emphasize that an employee’s entitlement should not be reduced beyond the actual leave taken and therefore proposes to add language to paragraph (a)(1) stating that an employer may not require an employee to take more leave than is necessary to address the circumstances that precipitated the need for leave. However, the DOL underscores that this principle remains subject to the rest of the rule, including the increment of leave rule. Thus, this change in the rules does not necessitate action for any employer already complying with the shortest increment rule.

The DOL notes that if an employee elects to substitute paid leave for the unpaid leave time offered under the FMLA, and the employer has a policy of offering paid leave in larger increments of time than unpaid leave, the employer can then require the employee to use more FMLA leave than necessary for the purpose of the leave in order to get the benefit of wage replacement. However, the employee can always elect to take the shorter increment of leave without pay to avoid drawing down the FMLA entitlement.

The DOL further proposes to clarify that the additions to Section 825.205(a) underscore the rule that if an employer chooses to waive its increment of leave policy in order to return an employee to work at the beginning of a shift, the employer is likewise choosing to waive further deductions from the FMLA entitlement period. In other words, if the employee is working, the time cannot count against FMLA time, no matter what the smallest increment of leave may be.

The DOL also proposes to remove the language in Section 825.205(a) allowing for varying increments at different times of the day or shift in favor of the more general principle of using the employer’s shortest increment of any type of leave at any time

Currently, Section 825.205(a)(2) includes a provision on physical impossibility, which provides that where it is physically impossible for an employee to commence or end work midway through a shift, the entire period that the employee is forced to be absent is counted against the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement. The DOL proposes to do either of the following:

  • Delete this provision.
  • Add language emphasizing that it is an employer’s responsibility to restore an employee to his or her same or equivalent position at the end of any FMLA leave as soon as possible.

If the DOL retains the provision as modified, it offers the following example: If after three hours of FMLA leave use it was physically possible to restore a flight crew employee to another flight, the employer would be required to do so. If, however, no other flight is available to which the employee could be assigned, or no other equivalent work is available, restoration could be delayed and the employee’s FMLA entitlement reduced for the entire period the employee is forced to be absent.

The DOL also proposes to clarify that the rule stated in Section 825.205(c), which addresses when overtime hours that are not worked may be counted as FMLA leave, applies to all FMLA qualifying reasons, not just serious health conditions.

The DOL further proposes to add Section 825.205(d), which will provide a methodology for calculating leave for airline flight crew employees.

Recordkeeping Requirements

§ 825.300

The DOL proposes adding a sentence to Section 825.300 reminding employers of their obligation to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). To the extent that records and documents created for FMLA purposes contain “family medical history” or “genetic information” as defined in the GINA, employers must maintain such records in accordance with the confidentiality requirements of Title II of GINA. The DOL notes that GINA permits genetic information, including family medical history, obtained by the employer in FMLA records and documents to be disclosed consistent with the requirements of the FMLA

Conclusion

With most employers having taken the position that the veteran’s provisions went into effect when the FMLA was amended in 2009, little action is called for at this time. However, employers should take this opportunity to review their FMLA policy, and should be aware that the DOL may take issue if a qualifying exigency for a veteran is counted against an employee’s FMLA entitlement such that the employee is later restricted in taking another leave. Further, employers should consider whether they wish to provide comments to the DOL during the comment period. Beyond that, most employers need only “watch and wait” until the DOL finalizes this rulemaking process to make tweaks to existing policies. Nevertheless, the DOL’s NPRM serves as a good reminder to employers to ensure that their FMLA policies incorporate the 2009 statutory changes.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Indiana Becomes the First "Right-to-Work" State in the Rust Belt

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Right-to-Work by Lisa Carey-Davis of Schiff Hardin LLP:

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed the Right-to-Work Act, making Indiana the first Rust Belt state — and the first state in more than ten years — to adopt right-to-work legislation. With this law, Indiana joins 22 other states, mostly in the southern and western United States, that prohibit employers from requiring employees to become or remain union members and to pay dues or fees to the union as a condition for getting — and keeping — their jobs.

The Impact of the New Law in Indiana and Beyond

Supporters of the new law contend that because it offers employers “more flexibility and lower hiring costs,” more businesses will now choose to call Indiana home. Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma declared that the Right-to-Work Act “announces, especially in the Rust Belt, that we are open for business.”

Some suggest that other Rust Belt states may soon follow Indiana’s example. State Representative Jerry Torr, who sponsored Indiana’s bill, has predicted that two of Indiana’s more heavily unionized neighbors — Michigan (19%) and Ohio (14%) — will “fall like dominoes” in the wake of Indiana’s decision because “they will have to in order to compete.” Mike Shirkey, a Republican state representative from Michigan, admitted that he was disappointed that Indiana beat Michigan to the punch, adding “now a border state is going to establish a leverage position in being attractive to businesses.”

Currently, roughly 11% of Indiana’s workforce is unionized, primarily in the auto and steel industries. If history is any indication, that number may soon decline. On average, right-to-work states have significantly lower rates of unionization than states without such laws. In 2010, for example, the average rate of unionization was seven percent in right-to-work states, while the average in the rest of the states was more than double at 15%.

The Right-To-Work Act was passed by Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature over bitter opposition from Democratic lawmakers, including a walkout by House Democrats that denied Republicans for several weeks the quorum required to take action on the bill. Democrats also proposed an amendment that would have put a Right-to-Work referendum on the November ballot, but that amendment was voted down. Unlike Ohio — where a short-lived statute that stripped public sector employees of collective bargaining rights was struck down last year by voters — ballot initiatives in Indiana must be approved by the legislature and cannot be introduced by voters. Therefore, a referendum vote on Indiana’s new law is unlikely.

What the New Law Means for Indiana Employers

The new law contains a grandfather clause that exempts any collective bargaining agreement already in effect on March 14, 2012. Until those grandfathered contracts expire, employers may continue to abide by and enforce union security provisions contained therein by requiring employees to join unions and to pay dues as a condition of employment.

But contracts “entered into, modified, renewed, or extended” after the new law takes effect on March 14 cannot contain such requirements. Specifically, the law prohibits employers from requiring employees to join or remain members of any labor organization, and from requiring them to pay dues, fees or “other charges of any kind” to such organizations. If a contract violates any of these prohibitions, the entire contract — not just the offending clause — is “unlawful and void” according to the statute. In addition, any Indiana employer that violates the law may be subject to both criminal and civil penalties and may be sued by an individual who claims to have been injured by the employer’s actual or threatened violation of the law.

Employers are not required to inform employees about the change in the law, but some may wish to do so.

© 2012 Schiff Hardin LLP

United Insurance Company of America Pays $37,500 To Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

The National Law Review recently published an article by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding a Disability Discrimination Ruling against the United Insurance Company of America:

Company Rescinded Job Offer to Recovering Drug Addict Because of His Disability, Agency Charged

RALEIGH, N.C. – United Insurance Company of America will pay $37,500 and furnish other relief to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Craig Burns is a recovering drug addict who has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program since 2004. In January 2010, United Insurance offered Burns a position as an insurance agent in its Raleigh office, conditioned upon Burns’ passing a drug test. After Burns’ drug test showed the presence of methadone in his system, Burns submitted a letter to United Insurance from his treatment provider explaining that he was participating in supervised methadone treatment program and taking legally prescribed medication as part of the treatment. Upon receiving this information, United Insurance notified Burns that he was not eligible for hire and withdrew its offer of employment.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in August 2011 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Civil Action No. 5:11cv00430), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary damages, the two-year consent decree resolving the suit requires United Insurance to conduct training on, among other things, an employer’s obligation to conduct an individualized assessment in determining whether an employee or applicant is disabled under the ADA; appropriate methods of determining whether an employee or applicant poses a direct threat under the ADA; and the obligation to engage in an interactive process under the ADA when an employee or applicant requests a reasonable accommodation. United Insurance will also post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy at its headquarters in St. Louis.

“The ADA requires employers to make an individualized assessment of whether an individual can do the job rather than relying on fears or stereotypes,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, which includes the Raleigh Area Office, where the original charge of discrimination was filed. “We are pleased that, in resolving this case, United Insurance is taking action to ensure that it fulfills its obligations under the ADA.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. More information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

© Copyright 2012 – U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

 

EBSA Moving Forward with Rules to Protect Retirement Savings

An article featured recently in The National Law Review by the U.S. Department of Labor regarding Retirement Savings:

 

 

 

The Employee Benefits Security Administration is moving forward with regulations and proposals that will increase the quality of advice being provided to individual retirement account investors and 401(k) plan sponsors and participants. Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis C. Borzi delivered this message to the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries last week during the group’s Los Angeles Benefits Conference. A final rule requiring financial services firms to disclose fees to retirement plan sponsors will be out soon, and EBSA is working toward re-proposing a separate rule that would re-define who is a fiduciary for the purposes of giving advice to retirement savers. These rules combined with other regulatory efforts will help ensure that employers and workers are able to make informed decisions and obtain the best possible advice when choosing how they save.

© Copyright 2012 U.S. Department of Labor

Pepsi to Pay $3.13 Million & Made Major Policy Changes to Resolve EEOC Finding of Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Against African Americans

Recently the National Law Review published an article by the  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Hiring Discrimination by Pepsi towards African-Americans:

 

 

Company’s Former Use of Criminal Background Checks Discriminated Based On Race, Agency Found

MINNEAPOLIS – Pepsi Beverages (Pepsi), formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training to resolve a charge of race discrimination filed in the Minneapolis Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The monetary settlement will primarily be divided among black applicants for positions at Pepsi, with a portion of the sum being allocated for the administration of the claims process. Based on the investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC’s investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment.  Under Pepsi’s former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense.

Pepsi’s former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity.

“The EEOC has long standing guidance and policy statements on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien.  “I commend Pepsi’s willingness to re-examine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed.”

During the course of the EEOC’s investigation, Pepsi adopted a new criminal background check policy.  In addition to the monetary relief, Pepsi will offer employment opportunities to victims of the former criminal background check policy who still want jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the jobs for which they apply.  The company will supply the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices under its new criminal background check policy.  Pepsi will conduct Title VII training for its hiring personnel and all of its managers.

“When employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position.  Such exclusions can create an adverse impact based on race in violation of Title VII,” said Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office. “We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII.”

“We obtained significant financial relief for a large number of victims of discrimination, got them job opportunities that they were previously denied, and eradicated an unlawful barrier for future applicants,” said EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe. “We are pleased that Pepsi chose to work with us to reach this conciliation agreement and that through our joint efforts, we have been able to bring about real change at Pepsi without resorting to litigation.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws against employment discrimination.  The EEOC issued its first written policy guidance regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment in the 1980s.  The Commission also considered this issue in 2008 and held a meeting on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment last summer.  The EEOC is a member of the federal interagency Reentry Council, a Cabinet-level interagency group convened to examine all aspects of reentry of individuals with criminal records.

The Minneapolis Area Office is part of the EEOC’s Chicago District.  The Chicago District   is responsible for investigating charges of discrimination in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and North and South Dakota.  Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

© Copyright 2012 – U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission