Tag: employers

California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Be Watching in 2022

The California Supreme Court has been busy in 2021 deciding cases that affect employers from how to pay meal and rest period penalties to when the statute of limitations for a failure to promote runs.

While the state’s high court answered some big questions in this last year, they still have several cases pertaining to employment law awaiting their attention.

Here are the cases employers should be watching in the new year and why.

People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s Inc.

In this case, a complainant filed a timely retaliation complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) claiming immediate termination after complaining about non-payment of wages. Her complaint did not allege any disclosure to a governmental agency, but the retaliatory act of termination upon her direct complaint to her employer. The DLSE undertook an investigation and determined that respondents had violated several Labor Code sections, notably 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”), California’s whistleblower statute. The DLSE notified the parties involved of its determination on December 22, 2015. Respondents were ordered to do several things, including paying the complainant lost wages and civil penalties of $20,000 each for violations of sections 1102.5 and 98.6. Respondents never complied.

On October 17, 2017, the Labor Commissioner filed an enforcement action against Respondents under the authority of section 98.7, subdivision (c)(1)5, alleging violations of these statutory provisions. Eventually, through a lack of response by the employer-defendant, the Labor Commissioner sought to take a default judgment.

The trial court, however, determined that the Labor Commissioner had not stated a claim under section 1102.5, because the complainant had not approached a governmental agency until after her termination. The trial court found that retaliation under the statute required the complainant to have been terminated as a result of disclosure to a governmental agency, which was not alleged. The trial court also found insufficient evidence for the claimant’s unpaid wages, and that the penalties under Section 98.6 were not appropriate.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning, but nevertheless affirmed the denial of Section 1102.5 claim as it found the after-termination complaint to be defective. It also reversed as to the penalties awarded under Section 98.6 and remanded that portion of the judgment.

The question before the California Supreme Court is limited to whether Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), which protects an employee from retaliation for disclosing unlawful activity, applies when the information is already known to that person or agency.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

Depending on the direction the California Supreme Court takes, its holding will affect the burden on employers defending against whistleblower claims – especially those arising out of allegations that an employee told an employer or agency information that the employer or agency was already aware of.

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

FlexCare, LLC (“FlexCare”), a temporary staffing agency, assigned Plaintiff to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (“Eisenhower”). Plaintiff alleged that during her employment at Eisenhower, FlexCare and Eisenhower failed to ensure she received the required meal and rest periods, wages for certain periods she worked, and overtime wages. She then filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. Plaintiff’s claims were based solely on her work on assignment to Eisenhower. FlexCare settled with the class and plaintiff executed a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement.

A year later, Plaintiff brought a second class action suit against Eisenhower, who had not been named in the previous lawsuit, alleging the same labor law violations. FlexCare intervened in the action asserting Plaintiff could not bring the separate lawsuit against Eisenhower because she had settled her claims in the prior class action.

The trial court held a limited trial on the issue of the propriety of the lawsuit and ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement. Accordingly, Eisenhower could not avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata because the hospital was neither a party to the prior litigation nor in privity with FlexCare. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case could affect staffing agency employers who may want to utilize broad releases if their “clients” are not also named to avoid duplicative litigation – for which they may have to pay twice – through indemnity clauses.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

This case will explore whether the evidentiary standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 (“Section 1102.6”) replaces the McDonnell Douglas test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5.

In this case, Defendant was a manufacturer of paint, stains, caulks, and other products. Plaintiff Lawson (“Lawson”) was a territory manager whose duties included merchandising and claims that he was directed by his supervisor to handle a product in a way that fraudulently removed a slow-selling product from its inventory. Lawson told his supervisor he would not do this, then reported the directive to the company’s ethics hotline on two separate occasions. The second report to the ethics hotline resulted in an investigation. During this time, Lawson received poor ratings for his work, was placed on a performance improvement plan, and eventually, Defendant terminated his employment.

Lawson then filed a complaint against the company in the United States District Court, alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower.

The trial court applied the McDonnell Douglas test, which employs burden-shifting between the plaintiff and the employer. This test originated in the context of Title VII, the federal statute governing workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The trial court concluded that Lawson failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact regarding pretext and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Lawson argued to the 9th Circuit that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6. Section 1102.6 states that once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliation against the employee, the employer’s burden of proof is to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons.

In its question to the California Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit noted that application of the McDonnell Douglas test to whistleblower claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 “seems to ignore [a] critical intervening statutory amendment” by which the California legislature established the evidentiary burdens of the parties participating in a civil action or administrative hearing involving a violation of the statute. Though this statement by the Circuit seems like a decision, the 9th Circuit pointed out three published California appellate court decisions that expressly applied McDonnell Douglas after the amendment.

This contradiction between California’s statute and the court rulings is the root of the 9th Circuit’s question.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

If the California Supreme Court rules that the evidentiary requirement under Section 1102.6 applies, disposing of whistleblower retaliation claims prior to trial will become extremely difficult due to the high clear and convincing evidentiary standard imposed on the employer.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

This case involves a class of security guards who alleged meal break violations and sought premium wages, waiting time penalties, inaccurate pay stub penalties, and attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeal held that unpaid premium wages for meal period violations did not entitle employees to pay stub penalties or waiting time penalties.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case will resolve a long-standing debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest period violations. If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts, it will increase potential penalties for California meal and rest period violations, as violations could be compounded by alleged pay stub penalties and waiting time penalties.

Article By Leonora M. Schloss and Karen Luh of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more litigation and legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Stay of OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard Lifted By Sixth Circuit – “All Systems Go,” For Now…

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay on the Occupational Safety and Health Association’s Emergency Temporary Standard (“OSHA ETS”) late Friday night (December 17, 2021). The Sixth Circuit had previously been selected at random to hear the consolidated OSHA ETS litigation.

As a result of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, OSHA announced that it would exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the OSHA ETS.  To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance:

  • OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the OSHA ETS before January 10, 2022; and

  • OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements before February 9, 2022.

These “extensions” are conditioned on an employer exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the OSHA ETS.

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit found that the petitioners (Republican-led states, businesses, religious groups, and individuals) were unable to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit considered and analyzed a myriad of statutory and constitutional arguments. Two out of the three judges on the panel determined that the petitioners would be unlikely to be successful on their constitutional arguments that OSHA violated the commerce clause or the non-delegation doctrine.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA is required to show that health effects may constitute a “grave danger” in order to warrant an emergency temporary standard. The Sixth Circuit held that the determination as to what constitutes “grave danger” should be left, in the first instance, to the agency. The Sixth Circuit expressly disagreed with, and in effect overruled, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by holding that OSHA was not required to make findings of exposure in all covered workplaces. The Sixth Circuit held that to require so would mean that no hazard could ever rise to the level of “grave danger.” Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit found that OSHA had shown that COVID-19 is a danger and relied on proper science in issuing the ETS. The Sixth Circuit further held that simply because OSHA did not issue the ETS at the beginning of the pandemic did not mean the agency did not consider COVID-19 an emergency worth addressing.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision was appealed this morning to the Supreme Court; however, this appeal does not alter the decision unless and until the Supreme Court rules.  In the meantime, employers should resume (or continue) preparations to comply with the ETS requirements. For a summary of the OSHA ETS and its requirements, visit here.

Article By Lilian Doan Davis and Isaac T. Caverly of Polsinelli PC

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Work from Anywhere? Telecommuting and Tax Obligations for Employers: Practical Considerations and Tips for Human Resources and Management

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sudden, widespread shift towards remote work arrangements. This shift has provided many benefits, including an increase in the employee talent pool and the ability to recruit without borders, cost savings, and a more flexible employee workday. In response, a number of employees have moved away, or plan to move away, from city centers or to a different state to find a better location in terms of cost of living and personal preference. However, this shift creates concerns for employers regarding labor and employment law compliance, tax compliance, and other business considerations when employees choose to permanently work remotely in a new location. Employers may not be aware of these considerations or even the fact that the employee has moved. It is important to understand these concerns and how they may affect the “workplace” as more businesses prepare for long-term policies on working remotely.

Labor & Employment Considerations

Wage and Hour Laws

 Different jurisdictions impose different wage and hour requirements, such as minimum wage, paid sick leave, overtime, exemptions, pay frequency, and pay statements. Multi-jurisdictional employers must understand these variations to make sure that they are complying with the various wage and hour laws in the states and localities where employees are working. For example, non-exempt employees working from home are still required to be paid based on actual hours worked, and are entitled to overtime. If an employer employs an employee who moves to a state where overtime must be paid for any work over eight hours per day instead of being paid for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, the employer would need to update its payroll system to ensure compliance.

Tracking Hours Worked

With remote work, employees’ actual hours worked can be difficult to track because of variable schedules necessitated by the competing demands of working from home. On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recognized this issue and published a field assistance bulletin that reminds employers of their obligation to track all hours worked by employees who are working remotely, including addressing authorized versus non-authorized hours of work, hours that the employer knows are being worked, and reminds employers that their processes and policies cannot prevent or discourage the reporting of hours worked.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Most employers are generally required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance in the states in which they employ workers. An injury that arises out of or in the course of employment will generally be covered by workers’ compensation insurance. This includes injuries that occur suddenly or over time as well as injuries that may occur when working remotely. For example, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees are conducting business from home-office setups where they may sustain various injuries. Depending on the applicable state law, this may be deemed a work-related injury eligible for coverage under workers’ compensation insurance. An employer that does not abide by a state’s laws requiring workers’ compensation insurance may be liable for noncompliance, resulting in potential fines and penalties.

Unemployment Insurance

Similarly, employers are generally required to pay premiums for state unemployment insurance when at least one of their employees conducts business in the state. Employers must generally register for an account with the state unemployment agency within the states in which they have employees working. A failure to pay these premiums may create liability for the employer, including penalties for noncompliance.

Discrimination Laws

 As a general tenet, the federal and state employment discrimination laws in a particular state apply to employees working in that state and they apply to “workplace,” which includes remote work arrangement, online forums, etc. Employers must be prepared to comply with various local and state employment laws, keeping in mind that localities and states might include different protected characteristics in their laws. Employers also will need to be in compliance with state and federal disability discrimination laws, as employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations even when working remotely. Employers may wish to review and, if appropriate, update employee handbooks to ensure that their procedures for internal reporting are accessible and are reasonable as they relate to remote employees.

Posting Requirements

Employers may be required to display in the workplace posters that discuss employees’ employment rights, such as those granted under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as under other local, state, and federal laws. If employees are working remotely, employers may be required to send out the postings by mail or email or display the postings on an employee information website, depending on the applicable law. Employers may want to consider providing a manner for employees to acknowledge receipt of the posted information to ensure they are fulfilling their obligations.

State Tax & Registration Implications

The unplanned and exponential increase in the number of remote workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised state tax and registration questions for employers with employees now working in one or more states separate from the states(s) in which the employer normally conducts business. Generally speaking, the presence of an employee in a state may trigger a requirement that the employer register as an entity transacting business, establish nexus for income/franchise taxes and sales and use taxes, and require registration as an employer for purposes of state and local income tax withholding.

This analysis is further complicated by the lack of uniformity in guidance issued by state authorities. A number of state tax authorities have been noticeably silent, suggesting that pre-pandemic rules continue to apply to out-of-state employers. Even with regard to the states that have issued COVID-19 related guidance, that guidance varies, as some states provide relief (generally temporarily waiving registration and reporting issues relating to remote workers created as a result of the pandemic) while others have simply confirmed that their laws are not impacted by the pandemic. The state guidance may also draw a distinction between previously assigned remote workers and those forced to work from home due to the pandemic.

Business Registration

Employers may wish to consider whether the presence of these new remote workers creates a duty to obtain a certificate of authority in order to transact business in states in which employers previously did not have any employees or operations. Failure to comply with these rules can result in significant penalties.

Business Taxes

If an employee performs services in his/her state of residency, this may create substantial nexus between the employer and this state. As a result, employers may be obligated to pay state and local franchise, income, or other applicable business tax in such states solely as a result of their remote workers. For retailers, it would trigger a duty to collect, remit, and report state and local sales and use taxes.

Income Tax Withholding

In the majority of jurisdictions, employers attribute an employee’s wages for income tax withholding purposes to the state in which the employee performs services. These rules would require employers to register with state and local tax agencies and withhold the income taxes according to the laws of those jurisdictions. With regard to other states that utilize a “convenience of the employer” sourcing rule, employers are faced with unique and complex challenges in the current pandemic environment. Generally, in such states, wages are considered earned by a nonresident employee and are allocated to the office location the employee is assigned to, unless the employee performs work that, out of necessity and not convenience, requires the employee to perform work from another location other than their assigned office. Historically, what is considered to be at the “convenience of the employer” has been defined broadly with narrow exceptions, and it remains unclear whether alternative remote working arrangements due to the pandemic would constitute work conducted offsite for the “convenience of the employer.” This situation is further complicated by additional states (most notably Massachusetts) temporarily adopting “convenience of the employer” rules under the guise of limiting disruption to employers.

In many cases, employers are left without clear direction and have no choice other than to review state specific guidance as it applies to their remote workers, including those who may have relocated temporarily or have relocated without any advance notice to their employer. While enforcement activity may be limited at the current time, employers should consider whether states will look to enforcement of these tax rules against nonresident employers in order to balance state budgets deeply impacted by the pandemic.

Localized Compensation

Many employees who plan to work remotely on a permanent basis are moving to more affordable cities to reduce costs or for other personal reasons. Some employers have responded by adjusting pay for employees based on localized factors, including income tax rates and the cost of labor in the employee’s new location. Some of these employers have made pay adjustments based on a case-by-case basis, while others have implemented a set pay cut when an employee moves away from large city centers, such as New York or San Francisco. While companies have pointed out that it is standard practice for an employee’s location to be a factor considered in determining pay, there has been some push back by remote workers related to this decision.

Conclusion

Due to the legal risks associated with employees relocating while working remotely, employers may wish to consult with legal counsel for guidance on navigating applicable law.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on remote working, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

New NLRB Rule Defining Joint-Employer Status to Take Effect

The National Labor Relations Board has announced the issuance of its final rule governing joint-employer status. The new rule, which was first proposed in September 2018 and has been the subject of extensive public comment, will become effective April 27, 2020.

The critical elements for finding a joint-employer relationship under the new rule is the possession and the exercise of substantial direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment of those employed by another employer.  The essence of the new rule is described in the Board’s February 25, 2020 press release:

To be a joint employer under the final rule, a business must possess and exercise substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employees. The final rule defines key terms, including what are considered “essential terms and conditions of employment,” and what does, and what does not, constitute “direct and immediate control” as to each of these essential employment terms. The final rule also defines what constitutes “substantial” direct and immediate control and makes clear that control exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis is not “substantial.”

Evidence of indirect and/or contractually reserved control over essential employment terms may be a consideration for finding joint-employer status under the final rule, but it cannot give rise to such status without substantial direct and immediate control. Importantly, the final rule also makes clear that the routine elements of an arm’s-length contract cannot turn a contractor into a joint employer.

The new rule marks a return to a standard similar to that which the Board followed from 1984 until 2015.  In 2015, in Browning-Ferris Industries, the Board adopted a much more liberal test under which a finding that the putative joint employer possessed indirect influence and the ability (including through a reserved contractual right) to influence terms and conditions, regardless of whether the putative joint employer actually exercised such influence or control, could result in it being held to be a joint-employer of a second employer’s employee.

As a practical matter, the standard under the Board’s new rule should make it much more difficult to establish that a company is a joint-employer of a supplier, contractor, franchisee, or other company’s employees. The new rule will mean that a party claiming joint-employer status to exist will need to demonstrate with evidence that the putative joint-employer doesn’t just have a theoretical right to influence the other employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but that it has actually exercised that right in a substantial, direct and immediate manner.

This new rule is likely to make it much more difficult for unions to successfully claim that franchisors are joint-employers with their franchisees, and that companies are joint-employers of personnel employed by their contractors and contract suppliers of labor, such as leasing and temporary agencies.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

For more on the Joint-Employer Rule see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

Social Security Administration ‘No Match’ Letters to Employers Make Another Comeback

Social Security Administration (SSA) has begun notifying employers that the information reported on an individual employee’s W-2 form does not match the SSA’s records with “Request for Employer Information” letters, known as “No-Match” letters.

SSA started sending these controversial informational requests in 1993, but the practice has waxed and waned in part due to litigation. In 2011, SSA resumed the practice of notifying employers of social security number mismatches. But in 2012, the Obama Administration decided to simply stop the practice.

Now, the letters are back! In July 2018, probably in response to President Donald Trump’s Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, SSA re-started the practice by sending “informational notifications” to employers and third party providers telling them of mismatches on their 2017 Forms W-2 and explaining where to find helpful resources. The plan was to send 225,000 of these notices every two weeks. Starting in Spring 2019, notices will be sent regarding 2018 Forms W-2s, but these letters, unlike the “informational” letters, will tell employers that corrections are necessary.

A mismatch does not necessarily mean that there is any wrongdoing. It can be caused by an administrative error: numbers can be reversed, names might be misspelled or changed, for instance, due to marriage. But once a letter is received, in determining how to respond, employers find themselves caught between agencies. SSA wants to maintain accurate records of earnings. ICE wants to ensure compliance with employment verification laws. And the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Department of Justice (IER) wants to ensure that employers are not discriminating on the basis of citizenship, nationality or by pursuing unfair documentary practices in violation of the INA.

What is an employer to do?

  1. Don’t take any adverse action against an employee based on a No-Match letter alone.

  2. Compare the SSA information with the individual’s employment records.

  3. If the employer’s records match, ask the employee to check the name and number on his or her Social Security card.

  4. If there is a mistake on the card or the card needs to be changed or corrected, ask the employee to reach out to SSA to resolve the issue.

There are no “safe harbors.” Each case is different and must be analyzed individually to avoid missteps and penalties from either SSA, ICE, or IER.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by Sean G. Hanagan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Recent Developments In Case Law And Policy Applicable To Immigrants And Their Employees

In these turbulent times for immigrants, we would like to signal a few recent developments in case law and policy that apply to immigrants and/or their employers.

1. Deportation and Removal

In the case of Pereira v. Sessions decided on June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals with prior deportation orders may now apply to reconsider/ reopen their cases if they were served with a written notice to appear in removal proceedings that did not specify the “time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held”. It is worth noting that most notices to appear served before June 2018 DID NOT SPECIFY the required time and place for the removal proceedings, hence many individuals would be eligible to reopen their removal orders under the Pereira case. The Pereira case would benefit in particular those who have been continuously present in the U.S. for 10 years or longer and have a spouse, child(ren) or parent(s) who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. To take advantage of the path to legalization that this case offers, it is imperative that you contact our office no later than September 21, 2018, which is the deadline for filing motions to reconsider/ reopen under the Pereira case.

2. Employment-Based Immigration

USCIS announced that it is extending the temporary suspension of premium processing for April 2018 cap-based H-1B petitions and, beginning September 11, 2018, will be expanding this suspension to include ALL H-1B petitions filed at Vermont and California Service Centers (and CT falls under the jurisdiction of the Vermont Service Center) except H-1B petitions for extension of status to continue on with the same employer and certain cap-exempt filings. The suspension is expected to last until February 19, 2019. The practical effects on employers will be felt in the areas of April 2018 cap-subject petitions and H-1B transfers which will now take several months to adjudicate. H-1B employees may be impacted in their ability to travel abroad while the H-1B is still pending and we highly recommend consulting us before any international travel. We advise employers looking to petition for H-1B transfers to use premium processing, if desired, no later than September 10, 2018.

In other employment-based immigration categories we are seeing increased processing times for work permits (EADs) from 3 to 6 months, a much higher incidence of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) on most work visa and green card categories, a higher incidence of fraud investigations on a wide range of cases, and as a consequence a spike in the need for highly skilled immigration counsel to ensure strict compliance with applicable laws and policies.

3. Family-Based and Naturalization

Processing times have increased – in some cases dramatically – for most family-based categories and naturalization cases. For example, in CT the I-751 removal of the condition application now takes 18 months instead of 11-13 months and naturalization cases are currently projected at 8.5 to 19 months instead of the 4-6 months previously.

4. DACA Applications and Advance Parole

Ongoing federal litigation in DACA continues to create confusion with regards to DACA applications, and pending litigation means there will likely be changes to the process in upcoming months. At present, USCIS is not considering first-time filings based on DACA, or requests for Advance Parole based on an approved DACA application. It is, however, processing renewals for those who currently have DACA status, as well as accepting initial DACA applications for those who had DACA status in the past. DACA renewal applications should be filed six months before the expiration of current DACA status so as to minimize the likelihood of having a gap in employment authorization.

In conclusion, we invite you to contact us to discuss and carefully plan the impact that these ever-changing immigration policies may have on your status, international travel, or your ability to hire and retain foreign labor. Please note the above-mentioned deadlines by which to act on your applications/petitions.

© Copyright 2018 Murtha Cullina
This post was written by Dana R. Bucin of Murtha Cullina.

Chicago and Cook County Paid Sick Leave Laws Go Into Effect July 1: Are You Ready?

As the holiday weekend approaches, many employers in Chicago and Cook County find themselves scrambling to prepare for the Chicago and Cook County Paid Sick Leave Ordinances that will take effect this Saturday, July 1, 2017. The Ordinances, though straightforward in their purpose of providing some limited sick paid time off to employees, raise a number of thorny, confusing questions and various administrative concerns for all employers. To add to this uncertainty, the City of Chicago only yesterday released its extensive final interpretative rules on the City’s Ordinance, which raise a number of interpretative questions and, in places, appear to diverge from the previously-issued final rules of the Cook County Commission on Human Rights on the County’s Ordinance. Not only that, the list of Cook County’s municipalities that are opting out from the County’s Ordinance has been changing, literally, by the hour. To help you get up to speed and make any final necessary changes, in this Alert we will review some key requirements and provide responses to some FAQs employers have been asking related to paid sick leave in Chicago and Cook County.

Paid Sick Leave Requirements

The Ordinances require employers in Chicago and certain municipalities in Cook County to provide all employees, regardless of full-time, part-time, seasonal, or temporary status, with one (1) hour of paid sick leave for every for 40 hours worked, up to a maximum accrual cap of 40 hours in any benefit year. Employees are entitled to begin using accrued paid sick leave following 180 days of employment, provided they have worked at least 80 hours in any 120 day period.

Employees must be allowed to use paid sick leave for any of the following reasons:

  • The employee is ill, injured, or requires medical care (including preventive care);

  • A member of the employee’s family is ill, injured, or requires medical care;

  • The employee or a member of his or her family, is the victim of domestic or sexual violence; or

  • The employee’s place of business, or the childcare facility or school of the employee’s child, has been closed by an order of a public official due to a public health emergency.

In addition to providing employees with paid sick leave, employers are required to inform employees about their rights to paid sick leave by posting the Chicago and Cook County notices in the workplace and distributing these notices to employees with their first paycheck following the Ordinances’ effective date, or with any new employee’s first paycheck.

Frequently Asked Questions

When updating their employment policies and/or practices, employers should be mindful of the following frequently asked questions:

Do the Ordinances apply to all employees working in Chicago and/or Cook County?

The Ordinances are broadly worded such that employers are required to provide paid sick leave to all employees working in the geographic boundaries of the City of Chicago and/or Cook County. However, the Cook County Ordinance permits municipalities in Cook County to opt out of the Ordinance prior to its effective date.

So far, more than half of the municipalities in Cook County have opted out of the Cook County Ordinance, meaning that employers are not required to provide paid sick leave to employees working in these locations. However, if an employee should change work locations, or travel for work, into a municipality that has not opted out of the Cook County Ordinance (such as the City of Chicago), the employee would be entitled to accrue paid sick leave for hours worked in that municipality.

Are employees able to carryover accrued paid sick leave?

The Ordinances permit employees to carryover half of their accrued unused paid sick leave, up to a cap of 20 hours, into the next benefit year. Employees working for employers covered by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) may carryover up to an additional 40 hours of paid sick leave into the next benefit year, to be used exclusively for FMLA-specific purposes.

Nonetheless, in most instances, employers may cap the amount of paid sick leave that an employee can use in a benefit year at 40 hours. The exception to this rule being that employees who carryover and use all 40 hours of FMLA-specific paid sick leave may use an additional 20 hours of regular paid sick leave in any benefit year. Thus, in limited circumstances employees may be able to use as many as 60 hours of paid sick leave in a single benefit year.

Are employers permitted to front-load paid sick leave?

Both Ordinances permit employers to front-load paid sick leave at the start of the benefit year, or at the time of hire. Employers who front-load paid sick leave do not need to track paid sick leave accrual or permit the carryover of paid sick leave into the next benefit year, provided that the requisite amount of paid sick leave has been front-loaded. The precise amount of paid sick leave to be front-loaded may depend on whether the employer is subject to FMLA and/or based in Chicago or Cook County, as their respective rules address front-loading differently. Employers with questions regarding the precise amount of paid sick leave that must be provided to employees should contact counsel.

Are employers able to provide paid time off in lieu of paid sick leave?

Employers may provide employees with paid time off (PTO) instead of paid sick leave, provided that all their employees are provided at least as much PTO as the Ordinances require to be made available for paid sick leave use in a benefit year. Employers should note, however, that accrued unused PTO must be paid out upon termination of employment. There is no such requirement to pay out accrued unused paid sick leave.

Recommendations

In light of the impending effective date for Chicago’s and Cook County’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinances, it is important that employers take any remaining necessary steps to ensure that their paid sick leave policies and practices will comply with the Ordinances. Policies that do not provide the requisite benefits to employees, or those that are silent on key issues such as paid sick leave accrual and/or usage restrictions, will be construed against the employer and could lead to costly violations.

This post was written by Alexis M. Dominguez and Sonya Rosenberg  of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

Better Care Reconciliation Act – Key Takeaways for Employers and Plan Sponsors

On June 22, 2017, the Senate released its much anticipated health care reform legislation – the Better Care Reconciliation Act (“BCRA”) (linked to amended version released June 26, 2017). In many respects the BCRA is similar to the House of Representatives’ American Health Care Act (which was described in our March 9, 2017 and May 4, 2017 blog entries). However, the BCRA differs from the AHCA in several important respects.

As of the date of this blog entry, the BCRA does not have sufficient support to pass a vote in the Senate and House GOP members have indicated that they would reject the bill. Therefore, Senate leadership has delayed a vote on the BCRA until after the July 4th holiday recess.  Nevertheless, as we provided for the AHCA, below are key takeaways for employers and plan sponsors and a few comparisons between the AHCA and BCRA.  A more detailed comparison between key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), the AHCA, and the BCRA is provided at the end of this blog.

1. Individual and Employer Mandates. Like the AHCA, the BCRA would essentially repeal the ACA’s individual and employer mandates effective after December 31, 2015. Both bills do this by “zeroing-out” the penalties for not having minimum essential coverage (individual mandate) or for not offering adequate minimum essential coverage to full-time employees (employer mandate). Outside of the effective repeal of the employer mandate, the AHCA’s and BCRA’s impact on group health plans appears to be minimal. However, if either the AHCA’s 30% surcharge or the BCRA’s 6-month waiting period becomes law, it is likely that plan sponsors will be required to provide notices similar to the certificates of creditable coverage required in the pre-ACA era

In the absence of an individual mandate, the AHCA and BCRA have different methods of incentivizing individuals to maintain continuous health coverage. Under the AHCA method, insurance carriers would be required to charge a 30% premium surcharge to those who fail to have continuous coverage (i.e., a break in coverage of 63 days or more would trigger the surcharge). The BCRA would require insurance carriers to apply a 6-month blanket coverage waiting period to any individual with a 63-day or more break in continuous coverage during the prior 12 months.

Outside of the effective repeal of the employer mandate, the AHCA’s and BCRA’s impact on group health plans appears to be minimal. However, if either the AHCA’s 30% surcharge or the BCRA’s 6-month waiting period becomes law, it is likely that plan sponsors will be required to provide notices similar to the certificates of creditable coverage required in the pre-ACA era.

2. BCRA Retains ACA’s Subsidy and Tax Credit Program. The Senate appears to have rejected AHCA’s elimination of cost-sharing subsidies and premium tax credits available only for coverage purchased on the Marketplace. The AHCA would have replaced the ACA’s program with an advance tax credit program available to individuals purchasing individual market insurance (not just Marketplace coverage) or enrolled in unsubsidized COBRA coverage. Under the AHCA, the amount of the tax credit would be based on age and would be available only to individuals with income less than $75,000 (individual) or $150,000 (jointly with a spouse).

The BCRA, however, maintains the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies and premium tax credit program, albeit with some modifications. Under the BCRA, cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance would be determined based on age, with younger individuals getting more assistance than older individuals, and income. Household income in excess of 350% of the federal poverty line would disqualify an individual from cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance, in contrast to the ACA’s 400% threshold. Additionally, under the BCRA, the premium tax credit would be based on a benchmark plan that pays 58% of the cost of covered services (in contrast to the ACA’s use of the second-lowest cost silver (70%) plan). This lower value of coverage effectively reduces the amount of premium assistance an individual can get.

3. Employer Reporting Obligations to Continue. Although the individual and employer mandates would be repealed, it is likely that the ACA reporting obligations (Forms 1094-B/C and 1095-B/C) would remain in place, at least in some forms. As noted above, the BCRA retains the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance, the availability of which is conditioned on an individual not being enrolled in employer-sponsored coverage. Therefore, the IRS would likely still need to obtain coverage information from employers.

4. Cadillac Tax Repealed Subject to Reinstatement. Like the AHCA, the BCRA effectively delays the so-called Cadillac Tax until 2025. The Cadillac Tax was originally slated to be effective in 2018, but it was delayed until 2020 in prior budget legislation.

5. Most ACA-Related Taxes Repealed. The BCRA would also repeal most of the tax reforms established under the ACA. Most relevant to employers and plan sponsors would be the elimination of the contribution limit on health flexible spending accounts (HFSAs), the ability reimburse over-the-counter costs under HFSAs and health savings accounts (HSAs), the increase in HSA contribution limits, and elimination of the Medicare surcharge applied to high-earners.

6. Popular ACA Reforms Remain. As was the case under the AHCA, the BCRA would keep many popular ACA market reforms and patient protections in place. These include:

• The requirement to cover dependent children until age 26;

• The prohibition on waiting periods in excess of 90 days;

• The requirement for individual and small group plans to cover essential health benefits;

• The prohibition against lifetime or annual dollar limits on essential health benefits;

• The annual cap on out-of-pocket expenditures on essential health benefits;

• Uniform coverage of emergency room services for in-network and out-of-network visits;

• Required first-dollar coverage of preventive health services;

• The prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions;

• Enhanced claims and appeals provisions; and

• Provider nondiscrimination.

7. ERISA Preemption for “Small Business Health Plans.” The BCRA would add a new Part 8 to ERISA for “small business health plans.” Currently, some states have enacted insurance laws that prohibit small employers from risk-pooling their employees in a single, large group insurance plan. New Part 8 of ERISA would preempt these state laws and allow the formation of “small business health plans,” which, generally, are plans sponsored by an association on behalf of its employer members. Small business health plans must meet certain organizational and financial control requirements and apply to the Department of Labor for certification.

8. Employee Tax Exclusion Remains Intact. Like the AHCA, the BCRA does not currently include a limitation on the employee tax exclusion that would result in imputed taxes to employees if the value of health coverage exceeds a certain amount. This absence, however, does not necessarily mean that such a limit will not eventually be imposed. It is possible that Congress will consider limiting tax incentives for both retirement and health and welfare plans when broader tax reform is considered.

9. HFSA/HSA Expansion. As mentioned above, the BCRA includes the same modifications to the HFSA and HSA rules as the AHCA. The BCRA would remove the annual contribution cap on HFSAs. Additionally, HFSAs and HSAs would now be able to reimburse on a non-taxable basis over-the-counter medication without a prescription. The annual contribution limit to HSAs would be equal to the out-of-pocket statutory maximum for high-deductible health plans. Spouses would both be able to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA.

It is still too early to tell whether the BCRA will fare better than the AHCA. In any event, we will continue to monitor legislative efforts and will provide updates as substantive developments occur.

Health Care Reform Legislation Comparison
Shared Responsibility ACA AHCA

BCRA
Employer Mandate Applicable large employers (those with 50 or more full-time employees and equivalents) face penalties if minimum essential coverage not offered to 95% of full-time employees (and dependents) or if coverage is not minimum value or affordable. No penalties for failing to provide adequate coverage. No penalties for failing to provide adequate coverage.
Individual Mandate Individuals subject to tax if not enrolled in minimum essential coverage unless exception applies. No tax for failing to enroll in minimum essential coverage. However, effective for plan years beginning in 2019, a 30% premium surcharge would be charged by insurance carriers to an individual who purchases insurance coverage following a lapse in coverage of 63 days or more. No tax for failing to enroll in minimum essential coverage. However, individuals who have a lapse in coverage of 63 or more days in the prior 12-month period will be subject to a 6-month coverage waiting period.
Reporting IRC §§ 6055 and 6056 require reporting from issuers of minimum essential coverage and applicable large employers. No change to ACA reporting requirements under IRC §§ 6055 and 6056. Additional Form W-2 reporting required. No change to ACA reporting requirements under IRC §§ 6055 and 6056.

Market Reforms

 ACA AHCA

BCRA
Dependent Coverage If dependent children covered, coverage must continue until age 26. No change. No change.
Essential Health Benefits Small group and individual market plans must cover 10 essential health benefit categories, as defined by benchmark plan established by state. No change, but states can apply for waiver to establish separate definition of essential health benefit. No change, subject to relaxed waiver rights under ACA § 1332 (State Innovation Waivers).
Annual/Lifetime Dollar Limits No annual or lifetime dollar limits can be applied to essential health benefits. No change, but states can apply for waiver to establish separate definition of essential health benefit. No change, subject to relaxed waiver rights under ACA § 1332 (State Innovation Waivers).
Out-of-Pocket Maximums Out-of-pocket maximum applied to essential health benefits. No change, but states can apply for waiver to establish separate definition of essential health benefit. No change, subject to relaxed waiver rights under ACA § 1332 (State Innovation Waivers).
Preexisting Condition Exclusions Preexisting condition exclusions prohibited. No change, but insurance providers must apply a 30% premium surcharge if individual has a gap in coverage of 63 days or more. No change, but 6-month waiting period applied if individual has a gap in coverage of 63 days or more.
Preventive Care Preventive care covered without cost-sharing. No change. No change.
Emergency Coverage Emergency room visit at an out-of-network hospital must be covered at in-network rate. No change. No change.
Rescissions Coverage cannot be retroactively terminated except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation or for premium nonpayment. No change. No change.
Summaries of Benefits and Coverage Short (8-page) disclosure of plan terms and glossary distributed on an annual basis. No change. No change.
Enhanced Claims Procedures Claims procedures now require additional claims procedures and voluntary external review. No change. No change.
Provider Nondiscrimination Cannot discriminate against a health care provider acting pursuant to state license. No change. No change.
Section 105(h) Nondiscrimination Fully-insured employer-sponsored health plans cannot discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals (not yet effective). No change. No change.
Medical Loss Ratio Individual and small group plans must spend 80% of premium income on claims and quality improvement. Large group insurance plans must spend 85% of premium income on claims and quality improvement. No change. Applicable ratio determined by the state (effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2019).

Tax Reforms

 ACA AHCA

BCRA
Cadillac Tax 40% excise tax applied to cost of group health coverage exceeding threshold (effective January 1, 2020). Delayed until January 1, 2025. Repealed effective December 31, 2019, but to be reinstated effective January 1, 2025,
Small Business Tax Credit Tax credit for premiums paid toward group health coverage available to small businesses. Not available for plans that cover abortion for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017; repealed for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020. Same as AHCA.
Health FSA Limit Maximum contribution to health FSA set at $2,500 (subject to annual increases for inflation). Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Repealed effective January 1, 2018.
HSA Distribution Penalty Penalty for HSA distributions used for non-qualifying medical expenses increased to 20%. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Penalty would go back to 10% for HSAs and 15% for Archer MSAs. Same as AHCA.
HSA Contribution Limits No change. Increased to match statutory out-of-pocket maximum for high-deductible health plans (effective January 1, 2018). Same as AHCA.
FSA/HSA Over-the-Counter Health FSAs and HSAs cannot reimburse over-the-counter products without a prescription (excluding purchase of insulin). Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Same as AHCA.
Medical Expense Deduction Itemized deduction under IRC § 223 available for medical expenses in excess of 10% of adjusted gross income. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Threshold would return to 7.5% adjusted gross income. Same as AHCA.
Medicare Surcharge Additional 0.9% hospital insurance (Medicare) tax applied to high-earners. Repealed effective January 1, 2023. Same as AHCA.
Medicare Investment Income Tax Medicare tax of 3.8% applied to unearned income. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Same as AHCA.
Health Insurance Tax Tax applied to insurance carriers based on premiums collected. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Repealed effective January 1, 2018.
Health Insurer Compensation Deduction No compensation deduction available to certain health insurance providers for compensation in excess of $500,000 paid to applicable individuals. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Same as AHCA.
Medical Device Tax Excise tax of 2.3% imposed on manufacturer, producers and importers of medical devices. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Repealed effective January 1, 2018.
Branded Prescription Drug Fee Manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs are subject to an annual fee. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Repealed effective January 1, 2018.
Retiree Drug Subsidy Amount received under Retiree Drug Subsidy must be taken into consideration when determining prescription drug cost business deduction. Repealed effective January 1, 2017. Same as AHCA.

Marketplace

 ACA AHCA

BCRA
Marketplace Structure

Individuals can purchase insurance coverage on risk-pooled Marketplace established by Federal or state government.   Individuals purchasing coverage on the Marketplace may be eligible for cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance.  Plans available on Marketplace (“qualified health plans”) must meet certain cost-sharing and actuarial value levels (i.e., gold, silver, bronze plans).  Qualified health plans must cover essential health benefits.

 Effective January 1, 2020, cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance are repealed. Additionally, Marketplace plans are no longer required to meet cost-sharing and actuarial value requirements.  Limited-scope, or catastrophic plans would be available.

No structural changes from ACA.   Marketplaces, including cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance, remain intact with modifications.
Cost-Sharing Subsidies and Premium Assistance Available to individuals with household income between 100% and 400% of federal poverty line. Age is not a factor in amount of subsidies or assistance available.

For plan years beginning in 2018 and 2019, basic structure remains the same except that age and income are factors in the amount of cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance that is available.  No subsidies or assistance is available for qualified health plans that cover abortion.

Cost-sharing subsidies and premium assistance repealed for plan years beginning in 2020. Instead, advance tax credit available based solely on age.

 Available to individuals with household income between 100% and 350% of federal poverty line. Age is a factor in amount of subsidies or assistance available.
Premium Rate Setting Small group and individual insurance markets may vary rates based only on certain factors, including individual or family coverage, community rating, age (3:1 ratio) and tobacco use.

Age ratio increases to 5:1 beginning January 1, 2018. States may apply to waive ACA requirements and base premiums on health factors.

 Age ratio increases to 5:1 beginning January 1, 2018. State Innovation Waiver Program (ACA § 1332) requirements relaxed, giving states ability to waive many of the ACA’s market reforms.

This post was written by Damian A. Meyers and Steven D. Weinstein of Proskauer Rose LLP.

Rule the Rules of Workplace Wellness Programs

Being Healthy in the workplace is a great goal, but there are considerable factors to keep in mind.  The book covers health and workplace wellness, but the focus is on the legal and logistic aspects and helping guide the professionals developing legally healthy wellness programs in the workplace.

ABA WellnessClick here to purchase the guide.

The approach of this book is to inform the reader of the “what,” “why” and “how” of workplace wellness program laws:

 1) What laws are important for workplace wellness program compliance;

 2) Why do those laws exist and why are they important for workplace wellness program design and implementation; and

3) How can workplace wellness professionals and organizations apply workplace wellness laws effectively?

Company Awarded Damages After Former Employee Hacks Its Systems and Hijacks Its Website

A company can recover damages from its former employee in connection with his hacking into its payroll system to inflate his pay, accessing its proprietary files without authorization and hijacking its website, a federal court ruled. Tyan, Inc. v. Yovan Garcia, Case No. CV 15-05443- MWF (JPRx) (C.D. Cali. May 2, 2017).

data security privacy FCC cybersecurityThe Defendant worked as a patrol officer for a security company. The company noticed that its payroll system indicated that the Defendant was working substantial overtime hours that were inconsistent with his scheduled hours. Upon further investigation, the company learned that that the Defendant accessed the payroll system without authorization from the laptop in his patrol car. When the company confronted him, the Defendant claimed a competitor hacked the payroll system as a means to pay him to keep quiet about his discovery that the competitor had taken confidential information from the company. A few months later, shortly after the Defendant left the company, the company’s computer system was hacked and its website was hijacked. The company later filed suit against the Defendant alleging he was responsible for the hack and the hijacking.

Following a bench trial, the court concluded the Defendant had used an administrative password the company had not given him to inflate his hours in its payroll system. The court also found the Defendant hijacked the company’s website and posted an unflattering image of the company’s owner on the website. In addition, the court found the Defendant engaged in a conspiracy to steal confidential files from the company’s computer system by accessing it remotely without authorization and destroyed some of the company’s computer files and servers.

The court concluded that the aim of the conspiracy in which the Defendant was engaged was twofold: first, to damage his former employer in an effort to reduce its competitive advantage; and second, to obtain access to those files that gave his former employer its business advantage, and use them to solicit its clients on behalf of a company he started. The court also found that by accessing the company’s protected network to artificially inflate his hours and by participating in the conspiracy to hack the company’s systems, the Defendant was liable for violations of the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

As a result of Defendant’s misconduct, the court awarded the company $318,661.70 in actual damages, including damages for the inflated wages the company paid the Defendant, the cost of consultant services to repair the damage from the hack, increased payroll costs for time spent by employees rebuilding records and databases destroyed in the hack, the resale value of the company’s proprietary files, and lost profits caused by the hack. The court declined to award punitive damages under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, but left open the possibility that the Plaintiff may recover its attorneys’ fees at a later date.

Take Away

Companies are reminded that malicious insiders, in particular disgruntled former employees, with access to areas of the system external hackers generally can’t easily access, often result in the most costly data breaches.

Steps should be taken to mitigate insider threats including:

  • Limiting remote access to company systems
  • Increased monitoring of company systems following a negative workplace event such as the departure of a disgruntled employee
  • Changing passwords and deactivating accounts during the termination process