Tag: Employment Law

Bill Allowing More Offshore Drilling Introduced to Congress

Posted today at the National Law Review by Sabrina Mizrachi of Greenberg Traurig, LLP – news on the Infrastructure Jobs and Energy Independence Act introduced in Congress yesterday……

The Infrastructure Jobs and Energy Independence Act was introduced on May 12, 2011, and seeks to allow more offshore drilling in order to reduce U.S. reliance on imported fuels and create jobs. The bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of four congressmen, Democrats Jim Costa of California and Tim Walz of Minnesota in collaboration with Pennsylvania Republicans Tim Murphy and Bill Shuster.

The bill contains no new taxes or increase of existing taxes, and would allow drillers to reach natural-gas reservoirs that could fuel industry in the U.S. for 63 years and the U.S. oil industry for 80 years, and also create 1.2 million jobs per year.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Summary of the Final Regulations to the ADA Amendments Act

This week’s guest blogger at the National Law Review is Jeffrey S. Nowak of  Franczek Radelet P.C..  Jeffrey provides a very comprehensive overview of the final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA):   

On March 25, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), a statute that now greatly expands the number of employees and applicants who will be considered “disabled.”  The final regulations fundamentally change the manner in which an employer must treat and manage employees with medical conditions in the workplace, since it now will be much easier for individuals to establish that they are disabled.  This Comprehensive Summary provides an overview of some of the key provisions in the final ADAAA regulations to help employers better understand the key changes in the law and adopt strategies to minimize liability.

Background

As originally enacted, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines an individual with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more “major life activities.”  Individuals may also be covered under the ADA if they have a “record of” a disability or are “regarded as” disabled.  Since the ADA took effect, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have construed the definition of disability in a relatively narrow fashion.  On September 25, 2008, President Bush signed the ADAAA into law.  Although the ADAAA retains the same definition of “disability” under the original Act, it makes sweeping changes to the manner in which these terms are to be construed.

In short, the ADAAA and its final regulations now shift the focus of virtually every situation that implicates the ADA.  Before the amendments, the interpretation of the ADA largely focused on whether an individual was substantially limited in a major life activity and, therefore, disabled under the ADA.  Under the ADAAA’s broader construction, the focus is not directed toward the actual definition of disability, but rather on discrimination and reasonable accommodation.  Given the ADA’s new statutory framework and new regulations that stretch the statute even further, employers should be prepared now more than ever before to respond to accommodation requests, make accommodations where necessary, and take precautions to avoid discriminatory decisions involving employees and applicants with medical conditions.

A copy of the final regulations can be found here.  The EEOC also has issued a guidance sheet and a fact sheet to aid employers in understanding the final regulations.

The final regulations address key issues, which are covered in this executive summary.

  • Will certain impairments always be considered “disabilities”?
  • What constitutes a “major life activity?”
  • What does it mean to be “substantially limited” in a major life activity?
  • To what extent are temporary or episodic impairments considered disabilities?
  • How do “mitigating measures” affect the analysis of whether an individual is disabled?
  • What does it mean for an employee to be “regarded as” disabled?

Broad Construction of the Definition of “Disability”

Taking its lead from the ADAAA, the final regulations provide that the definition of “disability” should be “broadly” construed “to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.”  (The message from Congress and the EEOC to employers could not be any clearer: Stop focusing on whether an individual is disabled and focus instead on reasonable accommodation.)  Although the final regulations track the definition of “disability,” a term which remained intact, the regulations clarify that there is a shift in focus to whether employers have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination occurred, as opposed to whether an individual meets the definition of a “disability.”

Certain impairments “virtually always” covered

Further illustrating the point, in spite of the ADAAA’s (and the final regulations’) rejection of the notion of a “per se” disability, the final regulations take the extraordinary step of listing certain impairments that “will, as a factual matter, virtually always be found to impose a substantial limitation on a major life activity.”  The EEOC suggests that these assessments should be “particularly simple and straightforward” (tellingly, the title of the subsection is “Predictable Assessments”).  These impairments include:

  • Deafness
  • Blindness
  • Intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation)
  • Partially or completely missing limbs
  • Mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair
  • Autism
  • Cancer
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Diabetes
  • Epilepsy
  • HIV or AIDS
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Major depression
  • Bipolar disorder
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder
  • Obsessive compulsive disorder
  • Schizophrenia

This list includes many conditions that often were not substantially limiting impairments under the pre-ADAAA.  Nevertheless, the list tends to undermine the EEOC’s long-held position that an “individualized assessment” should be conducted to determine whether an impairment is indeed a disability.

Notably, the final regulations removed a section from the proposed regulations that listed certain impairments that “may be disabling for some individuals but not for others,” such as asthma, back/leg impairment, carpal tunnel syndrome, high blood pressure, psychiatric impairment (less severe than major depression) and learning disability.  In light of the expansive sweep of the final regulations, however, plaintiffs with impairments like these, as well as others, likely will not face a difficult task in convincing a court that they are disabled.

Less Demanding Standard for “Substantially Limits”?

To be disabled, one must have an impairment that “substantially limits” a major life activity.  Under the pre-ADAAA, employers often questioned the extent to which an impairment must “substantially limit” before an individual is considered disabled.  Unfortunately for employers, the EEOC declined to quantify the term “substantially limits” in the final ADAAA regulations, explaining that “a new definition would…lead to greater focus and intensity of attention on the threshold issue of coverage than intended by Congress.”  As such, the final regulations offer employers little concrete guidance in identifying the threshold at which an impairment qualifies as “substantially limiting,” aside from the presumption that it must be a lower threshold than previously adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions leading up to passage of the ADAAA.

Instead, the regulations provide “nine rules of construction” to be applied in determining whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity.  Most of the rules come directly from the language of the ADAAA, but several have been added by the EEOC:

  1. “The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.  ‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.”
  2. The determination of whether an impairment is “substantially limiting” should be made by comparing the ability of an individual to the general population.  The impairment does not need to “prevent, or significantly or severely restrict” the performance of a major life activity in order to be substantially limiting.
  3. In all ADA cases, the focus should be on whether the employer has complied with its statutory obligations, since the “threshold issue” of substantially limits should not require extensive analysis.
  4. “The determination requires an ‘individualized assessment,’ but the assessment should be done by requiring “a degree of functional limitation that is lower than the standard for ‘substantially limits’ applied prior to the ADAAA.”
  5. Comparing an individual’s performance of a major life activity to the general population should not generally require scientific, medical or statistical analysis.
  6. The determination should be made without regard to the “ameliorative effects of mitigating measures” other than ordinary contact lenses and eyeglasses.
  7. “An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.”
  8. An impairment need not limit more than one major life activity.
  9. The effects of an impairment lasting or expecting to last fewer than six months can be “substantially limiting.”

The Effect of Condition, Manner and Duration

Commenting further on the “substantially limits” prong, the final regulations explain that, to determine whether an individual is “substantially limited” in a major life activity, it may be useful to consider the condition under or the manner in which an individual performs a major life activity; the duration of time it takes the individual to the activity as compared to most people in the general population; and the difficulty, effort, pain or amount of time required to perform the activity.

For example, under the new regulations, it does not matter whether an individual with a learning disability can read and write like the majority of people in the general population.  The regulations focus instead on how difficult it was for the individual to reach the level of literacy, (i.e., how long it took and the conditions which the individual had to overcome).  As a result, an individual may be substantially limited in a major life activity even if he or she can perform the activity at the same level as the general population, if it took more time, effort or work to become proficient compared to most people in the general population.

The Interpretation of “Major Life Activities” is Expanded Further

To be disabled under the law, one must have a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more “major life activities”.  When determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, according to the final regulations and EEOC’s interpretive guidance provide, the process should “not demand extensive analysis” and “usually will not require scientific, medical or statistical analysis.”

Notably, the final regulations expand an already “non-exhaustive” list of what may be deemed major life activities to include eating, sleeping, standing, lifting, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking and communicating.  The final regulations also include additional examples of major life activities, such as sitting, reaching and interacting with others.  When determining other examples of major life activities, the final regulations expressly reject the pre-ADAAA interpretation that the activity must be of “central importance to daily life,” a rule which expressly rejects the Supreme Court’s ruling in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams.  In effect, an activity no longer is required to be of “central importance.”

In a significant departure from the past, the ADAAA and final regulations expand the definition of “major life activities” to include the “operation of major bodily functions,” such as the immune system and normal cell growth, and neurological, bowel, bladder, circulatory and reproductive functions.  The final regulations list several additional functions, such as cardiovascular, lymphatic and musculoskeletal, and specify that the operation of a major bodily function includes the operation of an individual organ within the body (such as the liver or heart).  The appendix to the final regulations provides several examples of impairments that affect major bodily functions, e.g., cancer affects normal cell growth; diabetes affects functions of the pancreas and endocrine system; and rheumatoid arthritis affects musculoskeletal functions.

Work as a “major life activity”

The regulations also breathe new life into the “major life activity” of working.  Under the pre- ADAAA, a plaintiff’s claim that he or she was substantially limited in the major life activity of work almost always was dismissed by the court, largely because the employee was unable to show that the impairment substantially limited the employee’s ability to perform a “broad range” of jobs.  The final regulations maintain this requirement but lower the employee’s burden, claiming that this previous standard was “overly strict.”  Under the new regulations, if an individual’s job requires heavy lifting but the employee cannot lift heavy items and cannot perform the job or other jobs that require heavy lifting, then the employee is substantially limited in performing the class of jobs that require heavy lifting.  Is this shift in the rule all for naught?  As the final regulations point out, an impairment that substantially limits working will in most situations also substantially limit another major life activity.

Other Significant Regulatory Changes

Nearly All “Mitigating Measures” Are No Longer Considered

Under prior Supreme Court and federal appellate court precedent, employers were allowed to consider “mitigating measures” in determining whether an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity under the ADA.  For example, if an individual used a hearing aid or cochlear implant due to a hearing impairment, it typically was not considered a disability because the individual was not substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing.  Because of the mitigating measure (i.e., the hearing aid), they could hear perfectly well.  Under the new regulations, however, employers are no longer allowed to consider such measures.  As a result, employers will be required to analyze each individual’s impairment in its unmitigated state.  Thus, the individual with a hearing aid would likely be substantially limited in hearing because we are obligated now to consider them without the use of a hearing aid.

The final regulations do provide one important exception: employers are permitted to consider the ameliorative effects of using ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses.  The term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” is defined as lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or to eliminate refractive error.  For example, an individual with severe myopia whose visual acuity is fully corrected is not substantially limited in seeing because the ameliorative effect of the lenses must be considered.  Similarly, eyeglasses or contact lenses that are the wrong or outdated prescription may nevertheless be “ordinary” if there is evidence that a proper prescription would fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error.

What is also important to note is that both the ameliorative and non-ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, as well as the individual’s use or non-use of such measures (e.g., taking or refusing to take medication, even though prescribed by a physician) can be considered when determining whether the employee is a “qualified” individual with a disability or whether the employee poses a direct threat to safety; however, it will not affect whether the individual meets the definition of being disabled.

Temporary and Episodic Impairments May Constitute disabilities

Under the final regulations, short-term impairments and chronic impairments with short-term symptoms may be considered disabilities.  In the past, many courts declined to extend ADA coverage to individuals whose impairments were substantially limiting for only a short or limited period of time.  The new regulations reject this reasoning and prescribe that the duration of an impairment or symptom should not be dispositive in determining whether an individual is disabled.

Temporary and Short-Term Impairments

Clearly, one of the most significant changes to the final regulations is the EEOC’s decision to reject the long-held view that temporary impairments are not substantially limiting.  The EEOC previously took the position that the duration or expected duration of an impairment should be considered in determining whether the impairment is disabling.  That no longer appears to be the case.  The final regulations ambiguously state that “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting.” (Emphasis added).  When this language was first proposed, many commenters expressed that the new language would create confusion as to how long an employer’s impairment must last or be expected to last in order to impose ADA obligations on the employer.  (Further complicating matters, the regulations state that an employee who is regarded as having a “transitory and minor” impairment that is expected to heal shortly is not considered disabled.  Thus, it is conceivable that individual with a temporary impairment, such as a broken hand, may be disabled because the impairment substantially limits a major life activity, but may not be “regarded as” disabled for purposes of the Act.)

In response to these concerns, the EEOC opined that specifying a durational minimum for a disability would impose a more stringent standard than what Congress required.  In fact, the final regulations go even further than the proposed regulations on this point.  In the proposed rules, the EEOC identified a category of temporary non-chronic impairments that usually would not be considered a disability—for example, the common cold, seasonal influenza, a sprained joint, minor and non-chronic gastrointestinal disorders, a broken bone expected to heal completely, appendicitis and seasonal allergies.  The EEOC deleted this category in the final regulations, explaining that the provision caused confusion and was too limiting.

The EEOC’s position on the issue of temporary impairments is debatable.  It is not clear that Congress intended to extend ADA coverage to short-lived impairments.  Moreover, it is still likely that certain impairments of short duration which are expected to heal quickly, such as a common cold or a sprained ankle, will not be considered disabilities.  However, the regulations make clear that employers must consider all impairments, even short term ones, on a case-by-case basis.

Episodic Impairments

Under the ADAAA and the final regulations, an episodic impairment or impairment in remission is a disability if the impairment would substantially limit a major life activity when active.  This means that an individual with a serious chronic condition such as epilepsy or cancer could be considered disabled under the Act even if that person rarely or never experiences symptoms that would impact their employment.  The regulations provide specific examples of impairments that may be episodic in nature, including epilepsy, cancer, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

The Act’s express inclusion of episodic impairments presents some practical challenges for employers.  Many episodic impairments are unpredictable in their effects on the individual.  For example, an employee diagnosed with asthma may not experience an attack for several months.  However, the fact that an asthma attack could limit a major life activity may require the employer to provide a reasonable accommodation.  The same is true for progressive impairments, such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s Disease.  Many Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s patients do not experience any symptoms in the early stages of the disease.  Nevertheless, the fact that an individual could at some point in the future experience symptoms that would substantially limit a major life activity likely would render the person disabled even before the condition worsens and (practically speaking) substantially limits a major life activity.

“Regarded As” Individuals Need Only Prove Perception of an “Impairment”

Under the original ADA as interpreted by the courts, an individual was “regarded as” disabled only when the employer perceived the individual to have an impairment that “substantially limited” him or her in a major life activity.  Under the final regulations, the same individual seeking to bring a “regarded as” claim need not prove that the employer believed the individual to have an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, but merely that the employer perceived the employee as having an “impairment,” and based an employment decision on that perception.

Under the ADAAA, an individual subjected to a prohibited action (e.g., failure to hire, denial of promotion, termination or harassment) because of an actual or perceived impairment will meet the “regarded as” definition of disability whether or not the impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity unless the impairment is both transitory and minor.  The ADAAA further clarifies that a person who is “regarded as” disabled is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation unless the person also fits within one of the other two prongs of the definition of “disability.”

Notably, the final regulations specify that the “regarded as” prong should be the primary means of establishing coverage in ADA cases that do not involve reasonable accommodation, and that consideration of coverage under the first and second prongs will generally not be necessary except in situations where an individual needs a reasonable accommodation.

The final regulations further clarify that establishing that an individual is “regarded as having such an impairment” does not, by itself, establish liability.  Thus, even where an individual proves that an employer made a decision on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment, the employee must still show that he was “qualified” for the position in question in order to establish an ADA violation (i.e., he can perform the essential job functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation).   The employer may also utilize any otherwise available statutory defenses.  For example, an employer may still defend a decision to refuse to hire an applicant on the grounds that the individual would pose a “direct threat” to health and safety due to the nature of his impairment.

The proposed regulations originally identified several concrete examples of “transitory and minor” impairments that would not be sufficient to meet the “regarded as” prong of the statute, such as a broken bone that is expected to heal normally or a sprained wrist that was expected to heal in three weeks.  Unfortunately, these concrete examples were omitted from in the final regulations, leaving employers without clear guidance as to what constitutes a “transitory and minor” impairment.  Instead the appendix to the final regulations stress only that the inquiry as to whether an impairment is “transitory and minor” is an objective standard and provides these examples:

For example, an employer who terminates an employee whom it believes has bipolar disorder cannot take advantage of this exception by asserting that it believed the employee’s impairment was transitory and minor, since bipolar disorder is not objectively transitory and minor.  At the same time, an employer that terminated an employee with an objectively ‘‘transitory and minor’’ hand wound, mistakenly believing it to be symptomatic of HIV infection, will nevertheless have ‘‘regarded’’ the employee as an individual with a disability, since the covered entity took a prohibited employment action based on a perceived impairment (HIV infection) that is not ‘‘transitory and minor.’’

Notably, the final regulations give no example of an impairment that EEOC would find to be “transitory and minor” under this standard.

What about an employee’s symptoms?

In a nod to employers, the final regulations do not include a provision contained in the proposed regulations providing that actions taken because of an impairment’s symptoms (or because of the use of mitigating measures) constitute actions taken because of an impairment under the “regarded as” prong.  Employer commentary pointed out that this proposed standard could create liability for an employer when, for example, disciplining an employee for violating a workplace rule, even where the violation resulted from a symptom of an underlying impairment of which the employer was unaware.  This would have resulted in a clear departure from the EEOC’s existing policy guidance and court decisions, which recognize, among other things, that an employer may discipline an employee for job related misconduct resulting from a disability if the rule or expectation at issue is job related and consistent with business necessity.  EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, EEOC Notice No.  915.002 Mar. 25, 1997 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html.  The preamble to the Final Regulations states that this prior Guidance remains in effect, at least for now.

How Do Employers Respond to the New Regulations?

One might ask whether any employee is considered disabled under these new regulations.  Clearly, the ADAAA and its final regulations change how employers respond to and manage employees with medical conditions and who request accommodations in the workplace.  At a minimum, we suggest employers take the following approach to the “new” ADA.

  • The range of impairments that may substantially limit a major life activity has widened considerably.  Although not every impairment will constitute a disability, the analysis of whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity will not be the focus of a court’s inquiry.  In light of this change in emphasis, employers should not focus on whether an employee is actually “disabled;” rather, they should focus on insuring that they are in compliance with the statute.  Therefore, as an initial matter, employers should review and revise workplace reasonable accommodation policies to ensure employees are aware of the policies and to make clear the lines of communication as to accommodations in the workplace.  Similarly, employers should maintain processes for identifying, evaluating, documenting and providing reasonable accommodations as required.
  • Employers should be proactive about engaging in an interactive process with employees who have an impairment.  In doing so, they should identify which among their personnel will be responsible for addressing issues of accommodation, and actually engage in an interactive process when an individual makes a request for assistance in the workplace.  An employer’s best tactic in defending an ADA lawsuit is to demonstrate that it made good faith efforts to accommodate an employee, rather than questioning or challenging the employee’s medical condition.  Thus, the interactive process above must become the norm.
  • Review all job descriptions to ensure they specifically and accurately describe the essential functions of the job.  Notably, under the new definition of a “regarded as” disability, any decision that relies in whole or in part on any perceived or actual physical impairment will be subject to scrutiny under the ADAAA.  It is now more important than ever to insure that any physical or mental job requirements are truly necessary.Employers should insure that all anti-harassment policies explicitly prohibit harassment based on disability, or perceived or actual physical or mental impairments.  Potential liability for disability-related harassment claims has increased because offensive statements that relate in any way to a mental or physical impairment may give rise to liability, regardless of whether the alleged victim actually suffered from an impairment or was otherwise disabled.  For example, an employee who calls a co-worker “psycho” or “retarded” could potentially create an actionable hostile work environment under the ADA even if the co-worker has no mental health history and has an above-average IQ.
  • Properly and contemporaneously document employment decisions involving an employee who is an individual with a disability or has a record of a disability.
  • Analyze pre- and post-employment testing and screening (including language contained in employment applications) to ensure they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
  • Train supervisors and managers as to the broad coverage of the ADAAA and their responsibilities under the new Act.  At a minimum, the focus of training should include: 1) how they identify requests for workplace modifications; and 2) who they partner with in Human Resources as to the “interactive process” regarding modifications.

© 2011, Franczek Radelet P.C. 


Privacy Protection and Data Breaches: HR Tip of the Month

Recently posted at the National Law Review by Trent S. Dickey , David H. Ganz, and Jill Turner Lever  of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.  – some important things for employers in New York and New Jersey to consider about identity theft of their employees’ information as well as their customers information:  

Identity theft is a major concern for employers who are routinely entrusted with private information of employees and customers, especially in the electronic age, where improper use of such data can have widespread ramifications.  According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), each year as many as 9 million Americans have their identities stolen. Is your company prepared to address a data breach?

Federal law and many state laws require employers to safeguard private information.  For instance, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires companies to take appropriate measures to dispose of sensitive information derived from consumer reports.  If a company becomes aware of a data breach, the FTC also instructs it to immediately report the breach to the local police department, the local office of the FBI, or the U.S. Secret Service, and then to provide notice to individuals whose information was compromised to allow those individuals to take steps to mitigate the misuse of their personal information.  Many state laws also require that notice be provided upon discovery of a breach.

New Jersey has enacted the Identity Theft Prevention Act (ITPA), which requires any business that lawfully collects and maintains computerized records to disclose to the New Jersey State Police and to any New Jersey customer (broadly defined to include an individual who provides personal information to a business, including employees) when that customer’s personal information was or may have been accessed by an unauthorized person.  In the case of a large scale breach, businesses are also required to report to consumer reporting agencies.  In addition, the ITPA regulates the use of social security numbers as identifiers, prohibits the display and usage of social security numbers on printed materials except where required by law, and requires the destruction of records containing personal information when no longer needed.

Similarly, the New York State Information Security Breach and Notification Act requires companies who own or license computerized data to provide prompt notification following the discovery of a breach to any New York resident whose private information was, or may have been, acquired without authorization. The New York State Social Security Number Protection Law regulates the handling of social security numbers and requires covered persons and entities to provide safeguards “necessary or appropriate” to preclude unauthorized access to social security account numbers and to protect the confidentiality of such numbers.

Employers must be prepared to continuously protect information.  Best practices dictate that employers prepare guidelines for safeguarding private information.

This Alert has been prepared by Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising or solicitation and should not be used or taken as legal advice. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their state. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Confidential information should not be sent to Sills Cummis & Gross without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.    

Copyright © 2011 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. All rights reserved.

Seventh Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Kraft ERISA "Excessive Fees" Case

Recently posted by Nancy G. Ross and Chris C. Scheithauer of McDermott Will & Emery details of the recent 7th Circuit reversal of summary judgment involving Kraft Food’s 401(k) plan: 

On April 11, 2011, a divided Seventh Circuit panel reversed summary judgment in favor of Kraft Foods Global, Inc. in a class action ERISA breach of fiduciary duty case involving “excessive fees” claims in connection with Kraft’s 401(k) plan. The main take away from the decision is that fiduciaries must continue to be diligent and thoroughly consider plan administration issues and document why decisions were made or not made or practices followed, even on decisions and practices once thought to be routine or common industry standards. By following such a prudent practice, fiduciaries will substantially increase their ability to defend challenges concerning fiduciary conduct.

In Kraft, plaintiffs alleged three primary claims considered on appeal: that the use of a unitized company stock fund as an investment option was improper; that the plan’s recordkeeping fees were too high and imprudently monitored; and that the fiduciaries imprudently allowed the plan trustee to retain interest income from “float.”

In a 2-1 decision, the panel ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial on their theory that the unitized company stock fund was imprudently designed because of “investment drag” and “transaction drag” that is inherent with the widely popular unitized funds. Like most company stock funds, Kraft plan participants held units of the fund rather than directly holding shares of company stock. The plaintiffs alleged that the fiduciaries should have considered the “drag” that unitized funds cause on gains (and losses). The Seventh Circuit ruled that there was no evidence that the fiduciaries ever consciously decided in favor of a unitized plan finding that the benefits of a unitized fund outweighed the downsides, or whether they just ignored the issue. According to the majority, that was sufficient to proceed to trial. In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Cudahy called the plaintiffs’ theories on this, and others in the case, an “implausible class action based on nitpicking with respect to perfectly legitimate practices of fiduciaries.”

The majority further reversed summary judgment for the defendants on whether the recordkeeping fees were too high. The plaintiffs argued that the fiduciaries should have solicited competitive bids from other recordkeepers about every three years. Kraft had used the same recordkeeper since 1995, without a competitive bid, although Kraft received advice from several third-party independent consultants that the fees were reasonable. The plaintiffs submitted an opinion from an expert finding that the fees were excessive. In a decision with potentially wide-sweeping ramifications, the Seventh Circuit held that while the defendants’ reliance on the contemporaneous opinions of outside independent consultants that the fees were reasonable may be enough to prevail at trial, it was not enough to overcome the plaintiffs’ contrary admissible expert opinion at summary judgment which created a genuine issue of fact. The use of a consultant cannot “whitewash” otherwise unreasonable fees and a trier of fact could conclude that the defendants did not satisfy their duty solely through the use of independent consultants to ensure that the recordkeeping fees were reasonable. The dissent argued that the fiduciaries’ use of an outside consultant to confirm the reasonableness of the fees showed a prudent process and asked “what the majority’s holding means for ERISA fiduciaries” and “what is adequate to support a fee without the fear of litigation?” As noted by the dissent, this decision “will only serve to steer [fiduciaries] attention toward avoiding litigation instead of managing employee wealth.”

The Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment for the defendants on whether the float income the trustee received was a reasonable part of the trustee’s overall compensation, because the fiduciaries proved that they received reports showing the float income and the plaintiffs failed to offer admissible evidence that such information was not considered.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

Ohio Governor Signs Bill Reducing the Collective Bargaining Rights of Ohio Public Employees

The week’s guest bloggers at the National Law Review are from Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..  LerVal M. Elva provides some deatils of the recent Ohio law which significantly reduces the collective bargaining rights of nearly half a million public employees throughout Ohio, including teachers, firefighters and police officers. 

On March 31, 2011, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed Senate Bill 5 into law. The new law significantly reduces the collective bargaining rights of nearly half a million public employees throughout Ohio, including teachers, firefighters and police officers. Below are a few key points of interest.

The new law faces likely opposition by Democrats and union leaders who plan to organize and collect the more than 230,000 signatures needed from at least half of Ohio’s 88 counties within 90 days to place a referendum of the law on the ballot this November. If the Secretary of State determines that there are a sufficient number of valid signatures by the 90-day deadline, the law is placed on hold until the election and would only go into effect if the electorate votes in favor of it in November. 

  • Public employees retain the right to collectively bargain over starting pay, hours, and other terms and conditions of their employment, but will be limited in their ability to bargain over health care, sick time and pension benefits, building assignments and staffing sizes.
     
  • Public employees no longer are permitted to strike.
     
  • Public employees are required to pay at least 15 percent of their health care benefits and 8 to 10 percent of their pension plan benefits.  
     
  • Police and firefighters, who previously did not have the right to strike, would see their right to binding arbitration replaced with last, best-offer arbitration to settle a negotiation impasse that ultimately would be decided by elected officials after full disclosure of all demands and a public hearing so taxpayers may have input.  
     
  • The law eliminates automatic pay increases for longevity and replaces it with a merit or performance pay system for public employees.
     
  • The law prohibits the practice of selecting employees for layoffs based solely on seniority.  
     
  • The law does not apply retroactively to existing labor contracts, but rather is effective upon a contract’s extension, modification or renewal after the effective date of the law. 

This article was drafted by the attorneys of Ogletree Deakins, a national labor and employment law firm that represents management. This information should not be relied upon as legal advice. 

© 2011, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Racial Discrimination and the Hostile Work Environment: Employers May Be Responsible for the Actions of Their Customers and Vendors

Recently posted by Robert Neiman of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.:  details of a recent Seventh Circuit Appellate court ruling that a nursing home, by catering to a resident’s preference for white nurses, had created a hostile work environment for its employees based upon race.

All employers know that they must protect their employees from a hostile work environment based upon discrimination and harassment by other employees. A recent federal appeals court decision, however, clarified the steps that employers should take when their customers and vendors discriminate against or harass company employees.

In Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a nursing home, by catering to a resident’s preference for white nurses, had created a hostile work environment for its employees based upon race. This Seventh Circuit decision reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in the nursing home’s favor, ultimately remanding the case for a trial.

Understanding the Issues

In the Chaney case, the resident told the nursing home’s managers that she only wanted white nurses to care for her. Plainfield Healthcare Center acknowledged that it maintained a policy of complying with its residents’ racial preferences. The nursing home also argued that it expected employees to respect these preferences because it otherwise risked violating state and federal laws that grant residents the right to choose providers, as well as the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

Chaney, an African American nurse’s aide, followed Plainfield’s policy, even though the prejudiced resident continued to appear on her assignment sheet. Chaney reluctantly refrained from assisting the resident, even when she was in the best position to help. However, after Chaney had worked for Plainfield for just three months, the nursing home fired her for alleged misconduct on the job.

Chaney then brought a race discrimination claim against the nursing home, alleging that Plainfield allowed a hostile workplace to exist in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The federal appeals court had “no trouble” ruling that a reasonable person would find the nursing home’s work environment hostile or abusive. The court found that the nursing home fostered a racially charged environment through its assignment sheet, which daily reminded Chaney and her coworkers that certain residents preferred not to receive care from African American nursing assistants. Unlike her white counterparts, Chaney was restricted regarding the rooms she could enter, the care that she could provide and the patients she could assist.

The appellate court ruled that “a company’s desire to cater to the perceived racial preferences of its customers is not a defense under Title VII for treating employees differently based on race.” The court rejected Plainfield’s argument that laws designed to protect residents’ choices and autonomy justified its conduct, holding that residents’ privacy interests did not excuse the nursing home’s disparate treatment of its employees based upon race. Furthermore, the court suggested that Plainfield could have insisted that the racially biased resident employ a white nursing aide at her own expense.

The nursing home also argued that by preventing its African American nurses from treating the prejudiced resident, it was protecting those nurses from harassment, and that it could not simply discharge the resident to avoid exposing its employees to racial hostility. But the court noted that Plainfield had a range of other options, such as warning all residents of the facility’s non-discrimination policy prior to admission, securing written consent to the non-discrimination policy and attempting to reform the behavior of the racially biased resident after admission. The court further noted that the facility could have assigned staff based on race-neutral criteria that minimized the risk of conflict.

Notably, the court also suggested that Plainfield could have advised its employees that the resident was racially prejudiced, and informed them that they could ask the nursing home for protection from this and any other prejudiced residents. That way, the court explained, the nursing home would have allowed all employees to work in a race-neutral, non-harassing environment as the law requires, rather than imposing an unwanted, race-conscious work limitation on its African American employees.

Protective Steps for Employers

The Chaney case offers several lessons that employers should bear in mind. For starters, ensure that your discrimination and harassment policy clearly states that employees have the right to work in an environment free of hostility based on any legally protected class, even if that hostility is generated by customers, vendors or other non-employees. You should also consider informing customers and vendors of your non-discrimination policies where appropriate. If customers or vendors express a preference to deal only with certain employees—to the exclusion of others who belong to a legally protected class—then you should not tacitly cooperate. Instead, theChaney decision suggests that you should remind these third parties of your non-discrimination policy, warn employees that the customer or vendor is prejudiced, protect those employees from any hostility created by the customer or vendor, and help ensure that your employees have an easy way to communicate any hostile work environment to management.

Ultimately, you must measure the benefit of doing business with a prejudiced customer or vendor against the risk that your employees will suffer a hostile work environment, possibly leading to expensive discrimination or harassment claims. The Chaney decision suggests that employers don’t necessarily have to choose one over the other, but that they are required to take steps to protect their employees from racial prejudice.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

 

Is Your Company's Retirement Plan in Need of a Spring Cleaning?

Recently posted at the National Law Review by Alyssa D. Dowse and Timothy C. McDonald of von Briesen & Roper, S.C. – about whether your company’s retirement plan(s) need a little updating: 

The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) recently issued a list of retirement plan items that employers should review this year. This Update briefly highlights those items and provides you with useful resources for proper operation of your retirement plan.

Is Your Retirement Plan Right for Your Business?

An employer should review its retirement plan periodically to determine whether that plan remains suitable given the employer’s objectives.

Employers sometimes adopt retirement plans that prove to be overly complicated given the employer’s budget, the nature of the employer’s workforce, etc. For example, we recently helped a small non-profit organization unwind its defined benefit retirement plan. Given the organization’s objectives and budget and the nature of the organization’s workforce, the plan was too complex and costly to administer. The organization replaced that plan with a new defined contribution plan that (i) is much easier for employees to understand, (ii) is much less costly to administer, and (iii) provides the organization with needed funding flexibility.

Employers sometimes find that the off-the-shelf plan document that they have been using does not maximize the amounts that could be contributed on behalf of key employees. For example, we recently worked with a professional service corporation that found it could significantly increase its retirement plan contributions for shareholder-employees by implementing a feature known as “cross-testing.”

Some employers find that their business environment has become more uncertain so retirement plan designs that make funding requirements more predictable are desirable. For example, potential swings in the funding requirements under a defined benefit retirement plan could be reduced by converting the plan from a traditional pension formula to a “cash balance” formula and implementing an investment policy that tracks projected plan liabilities more closely.

As your business and business objectives change over time, it is important that you review your retirement plan to make sure it continues to be appropriate for your business. The following are some of the factors you might consider in determining whether your retirement plan is still right for you:

  • Have you experienced or do you anticipate significant growth in your business and workforce?
  • Have you experienced or do you anticipate a reduction in your business or workforce?
  • Do you feel that the benefits your plan provides are sufficient?
  • What are your total annual costs of maintaining your plan (i.e., record keeping, investment, actuarial, legal, trustee, etc.) and are those costs reasonable given the benefits your retirement plan provides to employees?
  • Does your plan document permit, and would it be beneficial to your business to have, the plan pay eligible administrative expenses in accordance with Department of Labor guidance?
  • Is your plan easy to administer and understand or is it so complex that employees do not understand or appreciate the benefits you provide?
  • Do you need more funding stability or flexibility given the cash flow of your business?
  • Are your plan’s special features (e.g., plan loans, hardship distributions, etc.) utilized sufficiently to justify the administrative effort associated with those features?
  • Would you like to consider ways to increase retirement contributions and benefits for key members of your staff?

Careful consideration of these and other factors will help you determine if your retirement plan still suits your business’s needs and goals. The IRS has a website that provides basic information regarding various types of qualified retirement plans: http://www.retirementplans.irs.gov/.

Are There Any New Design Features You Might Want to Add to Your Plan?

It is never too late to redesign your retirement plan to make plan administration and operation more efficient and better tailored to your business’s goals. You may not be aware of optional plan features that benefit employees and/or reduce administrative burdens, such as automatic enrollment, Roth account features, and safe harbor plan designs:

  • Automatic Enrollment: You may want to amend your 401(k) or 403(b) plan to provide that eligible employees will be automatically enrolled, eliminating the need for them to make an affirmative election to participate.
  • Roth Accounts: You may want to amend your 401(k) or 403(b) plan to provide a designated Roth account feature. This feature allows employees to contribute after-tax dollars to their retirement plan account. If certain conditions are met, the employee can receive those contributions and investment earnings on those contributions tax-free when he/she retires.
  • Safe Harbor Designs: You may want to amend your 401(k) plan so it qualifies as a safe harbor 401(k) plan. A “safe harbor” 401(k) plan is not subject to nondiscrimination testing otherwise applicable to traditional 401(k) arrangements. As a result, participating highly compensated employees can maximize their annual deferrals under a safe harbor 401(k) plan without regard to the amounts other employees elect to contribute. We have worked with a number of employers that found they could convert their traditional 401(k) plans to safe harbor 401(k) plans with minimal design and cost changes.

Have You Updated Your Plan for Recent Law Changes?

The laws regarding retirement plans frequently change and plan documents must be amended to reflect such changes. For example, retirement plans were recently required to adopt special rules regarding retirement benefits for uniformed military members, pursuant to the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. The IRS recommends that all retirement plans review current law changes annually.

Although law changes and required deadlines for amendments are listed in various government and practitioner publications, failure to timely adopt a required amendment is a common plan mistake. If a retirement plan fails to adopt a required amendment by the IRS deadline, the employer should remedy that failure using an IRS compliance tool known as the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“EPCRS”). Correcting an error under EPCRS is generally much less costly than correcting an error the IRS discovers on audit.

Do You Know and Understand Your Plan’s Terms?

The terms of your retirement plan document should dictate the way you administer your plan. Unfortunately, many employers are not aware of their retirement plan’s terms and have problems operating their plan correctly.

Make sure you know and understand the following questions regarding your retirement plan:

  • Which employees are eligible to participate in your retirement plan?
  • How does your retirement plan define “compensation” for the purpose of contributions to the plan?
  • When and how much are you required to contribute on behalf of employees under the plan?
  • What types of notices must you provide to employees and how often should the notices be provided?
  • Are you required to test the retirement plan for nondiscrimination and, if so, how often?
  • Are you required to file an annual return for the retirement plan?

Are You Operating Your Plan Correctly?

While it is important that you both amend your retirement plan to reflect law changes and understand your plan’s terms, you must also operate your plan in accordance with the plan’s terms. Incorrect operation of your plan could create serious problems for your business and your employees. In the worst case scenario, incorrect operation can lead to plan disqualification—which would subject your business and your employees to adverse tax consequences.

It is important to regularly review your plan to ensure that:

  • Your employees are allowed to participate in the plan when they are eligible under the terms of the plan;
  • The correct amount of employer and employee contributions are made based on (1) your plan’s definition of “compensation,” (2) your employees’ elections, and (3) your plan’s terms;
  • You deposit all employee contributions on time;
  • Any loans or hardship distributions allowed by the plan are properly administered; and
  • You issue required notices to your employees on time.

If you discover an operational error, please contact your employee benefits counsel. Operational errors can often be easily corrected under the IRS’s EPCRS. Please review the IRS’s Common Plan Mistakes website to learn more about mistakes plans often make and how plans can fix those mistakes:http://www.irs.gov/retirement/sponsor/article/0,,id=137958,00.html.

Are You Taking Advantage of Free IRS Resources?

The IRS provides many free resources to keep you informed, such as:

 ©2011 von Briesen & Roper, s.c 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Adopts "Cat's Paw" Doctrine in Discrimination Cases

Posted today at the National Law Review by Bracewell & Giuliani – details of the Staub v. Proctor Hospital decision handed down by the Supreme Court earlier this week: 

Employers may be liable for discrimination even though the final decision maker had no discriminatory intent

On March 1, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision inStaub v. Proctor Hospital, addressing for the first time the “cat’s paw” doctrine of employer liability in discrimination cases. Under the cat’s paw doctrine, an employee seeks to hold his employer liable based on the discriminatory intent of a supervisor who was not responsible for making the ultimate employment decision.

Facts

This case arose under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Staub, an angiography technician for Proctor Hospital, was a member of the Army Reserves, which required him to attend drill one weekend a month and to train full time for two to three weeks a year. Mulally, Staub’s immediate supervisor, and Korenchuk, Mulally’s supervisor, were hostile to Staub’s military obligations. Mulally told one department employee that Staub’s military duty had been a strain on the department and asked the employee to help Mulally “get rid” of Staub. Korenchuk ridiculed Staub’s military service as a waste of time and taxpayer money. In January 2004, Mulally issued Staub a “Corrective Action” disciplinary warning for purportedly violating a rule requiring him to stay in his work area even when he had no patient.  Staub disputed the corrective action claiming there was no such rule and, even if there were, he did not violate it.

On April 2, 2004, Day, a co-worker of Staub’s, complained to Buck, the hospital’s vice president of human resources, about Staub’s frequent unavailability and abruptness.  Shortly thereafter, Korenchuk advised Buck that Staub had left his desk without informing a supervisor, in violation of the January Corrective Action – an accusation disputed by Staub. Buck relied on Korenchuk’s accusation and, after reviewing Staub’s personnel file, decided to fire Staub.  The termination notice stated that the decision was based on Staub’s having ignored the directive in the January Corrective Action.  Staub challenged his termination through the hospital grievance process, denying that he had violated the Corrective Action and claiming that Mulally had fabricated the allegations on which the Corrective Action was based out of hostility toward his military obligations.  However, Buck refused to change her final decision.

The Supreme Court Held That:

  • An employer may be liable for discrimination under USERRA, even though the final decision maker had no discriminatory intent, where another supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military intent that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action; in other words, the ultimate decision maker relies on the supervisor’s act in making the final employment decision.
  • Intent and responsibility for the adverse employment action can be attributed to an earlier agent, e.g., Staub’s supervisors, if the adverse action is the intended consequence of the agent’s discriminatory conduct.  As long as the agent intends, for discriminatory reasons, that the adverse action occur, he has the scienter, i.e., knowledge, required for liability under USERRA.
  • The only way an employer can escape liability for discrimination is if the ultimate decision maker’s investigation results in an adverse action forreasons unrelated to the supervisor’s original biased action.
  • The supervisor’s biased report may remain a causal factor for the discrimination if the independent investigation takes it into account without determining that the adverse action was, apart from the supervisor’s recommendation, entirely justified.
  • If the independent investigation relies on facts provided by the biased supervisor – as is necessary in any case of cat’s paw liability – then the employer (either directly or through the ultimate decision maker) will have effectively delegated the fact-finding portion of the investigation to the biased supervisor.

What This Means for Employers

  • An employer will no longer be able to rely on the ultimate decision maker’s independent investigation as a defense to liability for the discriminatory intent of lower level supervisors, unless the employer can identify a reason for the adverse action that is wholly unrelated to the information or reports provided by the lower-level supervisors.
  • To avoid liability, before making employment decisions based on information/reports from an employee’s supervisors, employers will now need to determine whether the employee claims that his supervisors were discriminating against him on the basis of his protected class and whether the adverse employment action can be justified on some basis other than the information/report from the employee’s supervisor.
  • The Supreme Court noted that USERRA is similar to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Accordingly, courts will in all likelihood apply this same analysis to cat’s paw cases under Title VII, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP


Out of Work? Out of Luck

Great posted added today at the National Law Review about the EEOC’s hearing about the impact of employers considering only those currently employed for job vacancies.  

EEOC Examines Employers’ Treatment of Unemployed Job Applicants at Hearing

WASHINGTON—In a public meeting held today, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) examined the impact of employers considering only those currently employed for job vacancies.

“Throughout its 45 year history, the EEOC has identified and remedied discrimination in hiring and remains committed to ensuring job applicants are treated fairly,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Today’s meeting gave the Commission an important opportunity to learn about the emerging practice of excluding unemployed persons from applicant pools.”

According to Helen Norton, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado School of Law, employers and staffing agencies have publicly advertised jobs in fields ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant and grocery managers to mortgage underwriters with the explicit restriction that only currently employed candidates will be considered. “Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance,” Norton testified. “But such a correlation is decidedly weak. A blanket reliance on current employment serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance.”

“The use of an individual’s current or recent unemployment status as a hiring selection device is a troubling development in the labor market,” said Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment of the National Women’s Law Center. She noted that this practice “may well act as a negative counterweight” to government efforts to get people back to work. Women, particularly older women and those in non-traditional occupations, are disproportionately affected by this restriction, testified Goss Graves.

Denying jobs to the already-unemployed can also have a disproportionate effect on certain racial and ethnic minority community members, Algernon Austin, Director of the Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy of the Economic Policy Institute, explained. Unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans are higher than those of whites. When comparing college-educated workers, the unemployment rate for Asians is also higher. Thus, restricting applications to the currently employed could place a heavier burden on people of color, he concluded.

The use of employment status to screen job applicants could also seriously impact people with disabilities, according to Joyce Bender, an expert in the employment of people with disabilities. “Given my experience, I can say without a doubt that the practice of excluding persons who are currently unemployed from applicant pools is real and can have a negative impact on persons with disabilities,” Bender told the Commission.

Dr. William Spriggs, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, offered data supporting this testimony. Spriggs presented current national employment statistics showing that African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented among the unemployed. He also stated that excluding the unemployed would be more likely to limit opportunities for older applicants as well as persons with disabilities.

“At a moment when we all should be doing whatever we can to open up job opportunities to the unemployed, it is profoundly disturbing that the trend of deliberately excluding the jobless from work opportunities is on the rise,” said Christine Owens, Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project. In addition to presenting statistical evidence, she recounted stories unemployed workers have shared with her organization where they were told directly that they would not be considered for employment due to being unemployed.

James Urban, a partner at the Jones Day law firm, who counsels employers, expressed doubt as to the extent of the problem. Fernan Cepero, representing the Society of Human Resource Professionals, told the Commission that his organization is not aware of this practice being in regular use. But both Mr. Urban and Mr. Cepero noted that the automatic exclusion of unemployed persons from consideration does not constitute “due diligence” in the screening of job applicants.

© Copyright 2011 – U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Ice Inspection Hits Close to Home – Guilty of I-9 Form Violations

Recently posted by Jennifer G. Parser of Poyner Spruill LLP at the National Law Review – details about a recent employer immigration fine – where the employer had a legal workforce…..

Fast Food Franchisee In Fayetteville, NC Fined Over $27,000 — Despite Legal Workforce

In a decision dated December 22, 2010, the US Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) found a fast food franchisee in Fayetteville, North Carolina, guilty of I-9 violations and fined the company $27,150. Count I alleged that the franchisee hired 11 individuals from 2006 through early 2009, yet failed to ensure that they properly completed Section 1 of the I-9 Form and/or failed itself to properly complete Section 2 or Section 3. Count II alleged that the franchisee hired 97 individuals during the same time period for whom it failed to prepare any I-9s. Penalties were sought in the amount of $1,028.50 for each violation, for a total of $111,078. OCAHO found that, based upon a visual inspection, the I-9 Forms for the 11 individuals named in Count I contained substantive violations, and no I-9 Forms could be produced for any of the 97 employees named in Count II. For reasons discussed below, OCAHO ultimately fined the franchisee $27,150, approximately 25% of the penalties sought by ICE.

Never Backdate I-9 Forms

Employers should be aware that the substantive violations found in Count I were caused in part by the ICE auditor subtly marking a Form I-9 to determine if it was later tampered with, something that the franchisee tried to do, demonstrating bad faith. In this case, the ICE auditor made “three subtle marks” to determine later whether the forms produced were backdated or completed after service of the Notice of Inspection on the franchisee in the context of the auditor simultaneously providing a sample I-9 Form and a copy of the Handbook for Employers (M-274). At that time, the ICE auditor expressly warned the franchisee’s employee not to backdate the I-9 Form if new ones were prepared. When the I-9s were subsequently reviewed by ICE, however, it was determined that they had all been completed after the Notice, and that 7 of the 11 forms were backdated with the employer attestation at Section 2 still left blank.

Factors Used by OCAHO in Setting Penalties

Turning to assessing the amount of fines to be levied, OCAHO considered the following five factors which were not given equal weight:

  • Size of the business,
  • Good faith of the employer,
  • Seriousness of the violation(s),
  • Whether or not the individuals involved were unauthorized aliens, and
  • Any history of previous violations of the employer.

 Each factor will be reviewed in light of the fines levied against the franchisee.

Size of Employer

OCAHO found the franchisee’s relatively small size to be a mitigating factor in assessing the fines. Analyzing its number of employees, OCAHO determined that despite being part of a national fast food franchise, the franchisee was in fact a small employer with a large turnover common in the fast food industry, hence the 97 former employees.

Good Faith

Any analysis of an employer’s good faith focuses first on whether or not the employer reasonably attempted to comply with its obligations prior to issuance of the Notice of Inspection. Here, OCAHO determined that:

“…there is not a scintilla of evidence that suggests [the franchisee] made any effort whatsoever to ascertain the requirements of the law…[The franchisee] made no effort at all to ascertain what the law required and lacked the reasonable diligence required: there was simply no attempt at compliance prior to the Notice of Inspection. [The franchisee’s] subsequent attempts at compliance have minimal bearing on an analysis of its good faith because conduct occurring after the investigation is over is ordinarily outside the permissible scope of consideration.”

It is important for employers to note that mistakes found in Section 1 completed by the employee can be attributable to the employer as the employer is obligated to ensure that the employee properly completes Section 1: “[The franchisee] not only made no effort at all to ascertain what the law requires or to conform its conduct to it, it also attempted deception by permitting employees to backdate I-9 forms, and this is sufficient to support an assessment of bad faith.”

Further, the franchisee’s belated and disingenuous attempt to complete the I-9s by failing to attest to its own compliance in Section 2 implies an avoidance of liability for perjury.

Seriousness of the Violation(s)

OCAHO noted that a failure to prepare an I-9 at all is among the most serious of paperwork violations. As described above as a demonstration of a lack of good faith, OCAHO found the franchisee’s failure to complete Section 2 to imply an avoidance of liability for perjury.

Employees were not Unauthorized and Employer had no History of Previous Violations
None of the employees whose I-9s were involved was an unauthorized to work, nor had the franchisee a history of violations, probably mitigating the fines levied.

Mitigating or Exacerbating Factors in Assessing Penalties

Here, OCAHO took into account the depressed state of the economy and the difficulty any displaced employee would have in finding other work and reduced the penalties accordingly. As a result, the franchisee was directed to pay $27,150 in civil money penalties and not the $111,078 sought by ICE.

Conclusion

Employers should be aware that they will be blamed by ICE and penalized accordingly for failing to ensure their employees are properly completing Section 1, for permitting backdating or tampering with incomplete or missing I-9s for failing to complete its Section 2. Merely employing a legal workforce will not absolve an employer from imposition of penalties if Section 1 of its I-9 Forms are not meticulously completed by the employee on day one of hire for pay and Section 2 by the employer by day three.  

© 2011 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.