Archive for the ‘Compliance’ Category

Make Sure Your Unpaid Summer Intern Is Actually an Intern

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

summer internsMany organizations offer unpaid summer internships to college students or new job seekers. The opportunity is great for both parties. Interns gain professional experience, learn more about their preferred industry and make connections with the people they meet on the job. A company that offers internships meets several potential new employees who will learn a lot about the company and its culture, which is helpful for potential training in the future.

If you choose to hire unpaid interns, make sure you take great care in following the internship program guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor (USDOL).  Failure to do so could lead to a lawsuit like in the case of Hearst Magazines and a former intern.

Protect yourself and your company from a wage and hour investigation or lawsuit by knowing all of the factors that need to be met in order to offer unpaid internships. If your internship program does not include all of the criteria below, you have an employment relationship and must pay your interns minimum wage and overtime.

According to the USDOL’s Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs under the Fair Labor Standards Act for an internship to be unpaid, it must meet the following six criteria:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an education environment;

2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;

3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;

4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;

5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and

6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

Along with the six criteria, USDOL also provides some examples and interpretations of workplace situations in the Fact Sheet.

For additional information on company internship programs and compensation, please call a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: US Department of Education

3 Things Employers Need to Know About the NLRA

Tuesday, April 16th, 2013

NLRAHow familiar are you with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)? Do you have enough knowledge of the act to guarantee that your organization won’t make costly mistakes regarding your employees?  

According to nlrb.gov, the NLRA was enacted by congress in 1935 “…to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices…” Keeping up with the decisions based on interpretations of the act can be challenging. However, all employers should be familiar with the NLRA and know how related rulings affect their organization.

Here are three things all employers should know about the NLRA:

Not Just for Unions

Think the NLRA won’t affect you because there are no unions at your organization? Wrong! The NLRA is applicable to most private and non-profit employers whether they have a union presence or not (there are some exceptions). Because the NLRA affects most companies, it’s important to be aware of the most recent rulings dealing with the act.

The NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces the NLRA. Five members, appointed by presidents, make up the board. Their jobs are to review the unfair labor practices they receive from unions or employers, and make decisions or rulings on the cases they investigate. The board analyzes the NLRA to determine its decisions. Though the group can’t change the elements in the NLRA, it can change how the law is interpreted and used.

Decisions from the Board are Law

Rulings made by the board have the effect of law, and board decisions can change often. Past rulings do not set precedents as they do in actual courts of law, so reverse rulings of decisions made by previous boards are not uncommon. For employers, this means that employment and labor law constantly changes.

Make sure your organization stays informed to avoid actions that may violate federal or state laws. Brian Hayes, former NLRB member and current Ogletree Deakins attorney, will present at this year’s Employment and Labor Law Update conference. During his sessions, he will share his views and give advice on the board’s recent rulings.

Please visit www.capital.org/lawupdate to review the full agenda of the conference, descriptions about the presentations and to register. Feel free to call 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746 with any questions.

Photo Source: Kheel Center, Cornell University

OFCCP Releases New Compensation Directive for Government Contractors

Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013

CAI’s Manager for Affirmative Action Services, Kaleigh Ferraro, shares the latest updates from the OFCCP. Make sure you are compliant.

Kaleigh blogEffective February 28, 2013, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) officially rescinded their previous guidelines on compensation. This rescission comes as no surprise since they had published in January 2011 a Notice of Proposed Rescission. The OFCCP stated the previous guidelines were too limiting and “constrained OFCCP’s ability to investigate pay discrimination to the full extent permitted by law.” These previous guidelines also conflicted with other government agencies’ investigated pay discrepancies.

The OFCCP replaced the rescinded guidelines with Directive 307, which is supposed to provide contractors clear insight into how the OFCCP will conduct compensation reviews during audits. However, this “clear guidance” doesn’t really live up to this billing. What it actually does is list multiple protocols and factors the OFCCP may use during a compensation review. The OFCCP makes it clear they may use any number of these methodologies during audits and they will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This of course, gives the OFCCP a great deal of flexibility during investigations and makes it extremely difficult for contractors to determine if they are “compliant” based on the OFCCP’s methods.

The consequence of this new Directive is that it affects contractors’ compensation policies/procedures and data at both the macro and micro levels. Employers must be able to address how their practices influence compensation, as well as prepare for specific individual analysis. The changes to the compensation review procedures have the potential to cause companies additional angst during audits.

The following is a high level overview of some of the changes and the issues they may cause employers:

  • There are eight possible “steps” to be taken when conducting the compensation portion of an OFCCP audit and potentially additional consideration factors within the steps.
    • It is unclear which “step” the OFCCP will actually use during an investigation and/or the progression through any and all of these steps. The OFCCP also may change direction at any point during their review.
  • The OFCCP has indicated that several of their analyses will be conducted by broad groupings of employees and not just at the position title level.
    • With wide groupings such as pay grades, AAP job groups or pay analysis groupings being used for analysis, there is a greater opportunity for pay discrepancies to be identified during the OFCCP’s investigation.
  • Any documentation regarding company policies or practices that may be related to compensation may be called into question during the OFCCP’s review. Examples include but are not limited to performance systems, commission, overtime hours, training, etc.
    • This more detailed review of company practices will likely cause OFCCP to uncover issues with inconsistent pay practices as well as other employment policies.
  • Regardless of findings and whether or not an issue is identified during previous “steps” or reviews, the OFCCP has indicated they may continue their investigation into contractors’ compensation.
    • This seems to indicate that OFCCP audits will be comprehensive and involve many steps and reviews and will likely be a long and drawn-out (and potentially expensive) process.

The Directive seems to serve as an indication that the compensation reviews conducted by the OFCCP will cause many challenges among the contractor community, especially initially. To review Directive 307 in its entirety, visit http://j.mp/pd-gc.

If you would like to discuss these new guidelines in detail and the potential impact on your organization, please contact me directly at 919‑713‑5241 or kaleigh.ferraro@capital.org. CAI provides AAP plan preparation, OFCCP audit assistance, onsite training and webinars for hundreds of companies each year. We are happy to share our expertise with you!

 

Worker Misclassification: A Tough Issue, and Getting Tougher Every Day

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

This is a guest post from Diane Aull. Diane is the Website Manager for Acroprint Time Recorder Company and editor of their Time For Business blog. Acroprint offers a full range of workforce management products ranging from traditional punch clocks to cloud-based solutions and cutting edge facial recognition systems.

MisclassificaitonDoes your company employ or plan to employ temporary workers, consultants or independent contractors? Then listen up! The Department of Labor (DOL) is concerned that many such workers have been misclassified as independent contractors (ICs) when in fact they are actually employees under the law.

Of course, it’s perfectly legal to hire someone as a temporary or independent worker. However, some companies misuse the IC label to avoid paying payroll taxes, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance for regular employees.

This is unfair — both to the employees themselves and to those companies that do play by the rules.

What is being done?

In 2011, the DOL launched a Misclassification Initiative. This program is designed to ensure fair pay for workers and a level playing field for law-abiding employers.

To kick off the program, the DOL signed “Memoranda of Understanding” with 10 states and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) promising to share with each other information related to worker classification audits. Since then, four more states have signed on, the most recent being Iowa in January of 2013.

Since the launch of the initiative, the DOL has collected $9.5 million in back wages for more than 11,400 workers.

Why is this important?

How a worker is classified impacts many aspects of their employment:

  • Whether the worker is covered by minimum wage or overtime laws
  • Worker eligibility for Family Medical Leave Act time off, vacation, sick days and other benefits
  • The employer’s potential liability for negligent acts of the worker
  • The ability of the worker to sue for wrongful termination or discrimination
  • Availability of workman’s compensation and unemployment insurance for the worker
  • And more…

But classification is complicated and subject to different criteria, depending on which agency you’re talking to. The IRS has one set of rules, the DOL of has another, and your state labor board may well have a third.

It’s a real mess, and it only looks to get messier.

What are the consequences of misclassification?

You may be wondering if worker classification is really all that big of a deal. The answer, in a nutshell, is YES!

Let’s say the DOL audits your workforce and determines you’ve misclassified some workers. As the first consequence you may find — depending on how you calculated their compensation — you could owe these people back pay to comply with minimum wage laws.

Additionally, if the workers put in over 40 hours in a week, you will almost certainly be liable for time-and-a-half overtime pay for the extra time. (Side note: this is a good reason to track time for all workers, including temps and ICs. If you have their time documented, the courts will generally rely on your records. Otherwise, the court may simply accept the workers’ own recollections to determine overtime pay.)

As much as paying those back wages might hurt, it could represent only the tip of the iceberg.

You could also find yourself fending off the IRS and state officials, seeking back payroll taxes (including the employer’s share of FICA), unemployment taxes, and workers comp premiums — plus interest, penalties and fines.

Beyond that, the workers themselves could pursue legal claims, including possible class-action suits.

You might not even be able to get out from under these obligations by shutting down the business. In July of 2011, the DOL obtained a judgment against the former owners of 1st National Leasing, a defunct company in Tampa, Florida. They were assessed more than $34,000 in back wages owed to former employees who had been misclassified as ICs. Yes, the owners were held personally liable and had to pay the back wages out of their own pockets.

How can you protect yourself?

If you currently have any ICs or temps on staff, your first act should be to consult with your employment law advisor to ensure you’re not taking any unnecessary chances with your worker classification. They should be able to analyze the various criteria and help you compare your current situation with what’s required.

If it’s been awhile since you’ve conducted this sort of review, you may find you need to modify some of your policies and procedures related to ICs and temps in order to maintain their classification. Your supervisors and managers may also need a “refresher course” in what it takes to maintain proper IC classification to ensure they don’t inadvertently get your business in hot water.

You may wish to also create a questionnaire or checklist you can follow to help you assess any new hires to determine their proper classification. Keeping these completed checklists on hand can be evidence of “good faith effort” in the event of a DOL audit.

Worker classification is a complicated issue, and one fraught with peril in today’s lawsuit-prone environment. You owe it to yourself and your business to be aware and take all due precautions.

If you need an accurate, flexible solution to track work hours for independent contractors or regular employees, contact Acroprint at 1-800-334-7190 or online at www.Acroprint.com.

Photo Source: Victor1558

Are You Aware of the Regulatory and Legal Changes Affecting N.C. Employers in 2013?

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

2013ELLU-Flash 2012 brought a number of federal and state employment law changes that will affect North Carolina employers this year. Agencies, such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), are giving employers more challenges by increasing their scrutiny on compliance. North Carolina also has restructured its unemployment insurance system to deal with the state’s federal debt, as well as make the NC Division of Employment Security (DES) more efficient.

Please join us for the 2013 Employment and Labor Law Update at Raleigh’s McKimmon Center on May 22 and May 23. The experienced attorneys of Ogletree Deakins will update you on the latest developments and inform you on what they mean to N.C. employers and how they will specifically affect your organization.

Ogletree Deakins’ knowledgeable attorneys will cover several topics pertinent to employers, including:

 

NLRB

Workplace Violence Prevention

Employee Handbooks

N.C. Legislature

ICE

E-Verify

Healthcare Reform

ADAAA

Challenges with New Technology

Compensation Systems

USDOL

FLSA

Unemployment Insurance Reform

Affordable Care Act

EEOC

Whistleblower Claims

 

Brian Hayes, former NLRB member and voice of management on the board for more than two years, will present at this year’s conference. Brian’s term on the NLRB Board may have ended in December 2012, but he’ll share his view on the board’s recent rulings and help you prepare for the new challenges facing employers. Conference favorite Dennis Davis also will share with attendees a special presentation on preventing workplace violence.

If you want to understand how the latest developments in state and federal employment laws and regulations affect your organization, attend this conference. In addition to all the compliance information you’ll receive, you’ll have a number of opportunities to network with leading employment law attorneys and more than 350 HR executives and company leaders.

Please visit www.capital.org/lawupdate to review the event’s full agenda, descriptions about the presentations and to register. Feel free to call 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746 with any questions.

5 Updates to North Carolina’s Unemployment System You Need to Know

Tuesday, March 12th, 2013

George PortsCAI’s Senior HR Advisor and Government Relations Specialist George Ports explains the five major changes to North Carolina’s Unemployment System now that Governor Pat McCrory signed House Bill 4, UI Fund Solvency & Program Changes on February 19, 2013.

House Bill 4, UI Fund Solvency & Program Changes was drafted in efforts to address the $2.8 billion debt owed to the federal government and to improve efficiency at the North Carolina Division of Employment Security (DES).

Highlights of the five changes to North Carolina’s Unemployment System are:

  • Near elimination of “attached claims”
  • Elimination of “Substantial Fault”
  • Higher taxes at the state and federal levels
  • Elimination of most “good cause” reasons
  • Reductions in benefit amounts and duration

The effective date for most of these changes is July 1st, 2013 with the exception of new employer contribution rates, which will be effective January 1st, 2014

Let’s breakdown the three changes that are receiving most of the attention: reduction in benefit amounts, reduction in the duration of benefits and near elimination of “attached claims”

Reduction in benefit amounts

Currently the maximum weekly unemployment benefit is $535.00.  This maximum benefit, under current law, is indexed annually based upon North Carolina’s average weekly insured wage (AWIW).  So if the AWIW increases, so does the maximum weekly benefit.  The new law’s purpose in reducing the weekly benefit to $350.00 is to bring North Carolina’s maximum weekly unemployment benefit in line with neighbor states that are as follows:

  • Florida –$275       
  • Georgia–$330
  • South Carolina–$326
  • Tennessee–$275
  • Virginia–$378

In addition to the reduction in benefits, the maximum weekly will no longer be indexed annually; adjustments will require legislative action by the North Carolina General Assembly.

Reduction in duration of benefits

Under current North Carolina law, the maximum duration of benefits is 13 to 26 weeks based upon an individual’s work history.  The new law provides that benefit duration is based upon a sliding scale determined by unemployment rates and an individual’s work history.  An example of this sliding scale is as follows:

UI Rate is 5.5%:  12 weeks max. (5-12)

UI Rate is 9.5%:  20 weeks max. (13-20)

Each calendar year there will be two unemployment rates that will affect duration.  One of the rates will be announced in January by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  The BLS, although a federal agency, announces the unemployment rate reported by North Carolina. This rate is actually the rate from the previous October.  The second rate will be announced by the BLS July 1st (North Carolina’s rate from the previous April).  In other words, if a claimant files in March the duration would be determined by the January rate.  If a claimant files in September the duration of benefits would be determined by the rate announced in July.

Near Elimination of “attached claims”

Employers are currently able to file attached claims for employees to receive UI benefits during periods of work slowdowns or temporary layoffs.  If the employer provides less than 60% of an employee’s regularly scheduled workweek, attached claims are filed and employees are not separated from the company.

The new law, for the most part, repeals the use of “attached claims” with some exceptions.  The attached claims provision will be available if the employer has a positive credit balance and submits payment to cover cost of benefits.  The payments are to be made at the time the claims are filed and will be credited to the employer’s account.  The logic here is to ensure that the employer’s account does not go into a negative balance.  This provision is limited to one time per employee per calendar year for a maximum of six weeks (Employers with a debit balance can utilize as above if they make an additional payment that would bring their account to at least zero).

CAI/ECNC (Employers Coalition for North Carolina) helped to fund an independent study conducted by a national organization specializing in unemployment and workers’ compensation system. Recommendations from the study were based on an analysis of North Carolina’s current debt/system issues and comparisons with other state systems. CAI/ECNC voiced concerns regarding the total repeal of the “attached claims” provision, which resulted in the limited exceptions included in the legislation as noted above. One of the main sponsors of House Bill 4 testified in a legislative committee that benefits paid out for “attached claims” accounted for nearly half of North Carolina’s $2.8 debt to the federal government.

This new law has pain points for both claimants and employers.  However, the passage of the legislation was necessary to pay off the $2.8 billion unemployment debt owed to the federal government, bringing solvency back and repairing North Carolina’s broken Unemployment System. 

The Employers Coalition of North Carolina (ECNC) is committed to improving the business climate of North Carolina through political advocacy at the legislative and administrative levels of government. For more information about ECNC, please visit www.ecnc.us.

 

Defining a Full-Time Employee

Tuesday, February 26th, 2013

The post below is a guest blog from Steve Byrd who serves as Principal, Health & Welfare Consultant  for CAI’s employee benefits partner, HCW Employee Benefit Services.

HCW 2 26 2013Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), employers with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees will have to provide affordable benefits to all full-time employees who work 30 or more hours a week by 2014. Failure to do so can result in an assessment of $2,000 per year for each full-time employee, excluding the first 30 full-time employees.

What exactly qualifies as a “full-time employee working 30 hours a week” under federal guidelines? While the IRS has issued Notices 2011-36 and 2011-73 that easily clarify the Employer Mandate for most cases, employees working variable hours present a special challenge.

 Variable Hour Employees

The IRS Notice 2012-58 says employers can determine plan eligibility for new and ongoing variable hour employees this way:

1) Choose an initial measurement period between three and 12 months to average employee work hours.

2) If a new variable-hour employee averages 30 or more hours per week during this initial measurement period, then you have 30 to 90 days to offer and enroll the individual on the medical plan.

3) For those working less than 30 hours on average, benefits do not need to be offered, but the position must be measured periodically for redetermination.

These regulations include other employer options with time frame selections for measuring which employees qualify as full-time ones.

Whatever criteria is chosen, employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees will need to closely and consistently track the various measurement periods. Those same companies with employees working less than 30 hours a week will need to reassess their procedures around these positions while staying within compliance of PPACA requirements starting in 2014 and monitoring whether the status of those employees need to be reclassified due to changing circumstances.

What Should Large Employers Do?

As it is expected that the majority of employers with 50 or more full-time employees will continue to offer benefits to recruit and retain top talent.  To stay competitive and in compliance with PPACA, you should:

1) Evaluate the level of benefits you are providing and see if they remain financially feasible.

2) Understand the new markets created by the healthcare exchanges.

3) Reorient your employees toward more prudent usage of your programs. 

4) Establish an effective and efficient system that avoids time-consuming paperwork to keep track of classifications.

The latter system can vary given your operation’s scope, number of employees and individuals who are involved in monitoring this item.

To learn how to set up processes that work best for measuring and following the qualifications for full-time employees, contact Hill, Chesson & Woody at info@hcwbenefits.com. Additionally, we have several healthcare reform webinars available on-demand on our website to assist you in understanding the provisions and how they impact employers.

Employers, Use Caution When Dealing with Unpredictable FMLA Leave

Thursday, February 21st, 2013

FMLA leaveThe Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a topic on which many HR professionals are knowledgeable. Preparing for a situation that requires an employee to take FMLA leave isn’t a major problem if the time off was scheduled in advanced.

Robin Shea, attorney for Constangy, Brooks & Smith and writer of the Employment and Labor Insider blog, suggests that problems occur when an employee who’s in a critical-but-inflexible position (like a customer service representative) needs intermittent leave under the FMLA unexpectedly.

In her article, Employer’s Bane: Unpredictable FMLA leave. Is there a solution?, Robin empathizes with employers on the implications that unexpected leave can have on their business. She writes:

Where the absences are unpredictable, it’s impossible for the employer to plan, and because the employee’s position is critical, there is no way to “let things slide” until the employee is able to come back.

She acknowledges that dealing with intermittent FMLA leave is no walk in the park. However, Robin cautions employers from executing solutions that yield bad results like a lawsuit. She uses the example below to inform employers of the consequence of mishandling FMLA leave:

One seemingly logical solution to this problem is to say to the employee, “Look, we recognize your need for FMLA leave, but we really can’t handle frequent unpredictable absences in your position. So here’s what we’ll do. We will temporarily reassign you to another position that better accommodates recurring periods of leave. We’ll leave your pay and benefits unchanged. Then, when you’re able to come back to your old job and attend on a regular, predictable basis, we’ll put you back in that position.”

 ”Sounds great — thank you! What’s the new job?” (employee)

 ”Uh, men’s room attendant. It’s a non-essential position, so it will be immaterial to us whether you ever show up for work or not.”

 This rubs employee the wrong way, especially since she’s a woman. Employee goes to U.S. Department of Labor and files a complaint. You lose, because the “temporary reassignment” option applies only if the leave is foreseeable.

After revealing another failed attempt to deal with this HR headache, Robin points out that there isn’t much employers can do to protect themselves.

When Robin has a client that is in desperate need for a solution, she suggests “requiring the employee to take “block” leave but counting only the “necessary” time against the employee’s 12-week FMLA entitlement. Any other time can be covered by PTO or short-term disability or workers’ comp, or just regular pay, and it cannot be counted against the employee for FMLA or attendance purposes.”

She also says that employees have the option to “tough it out” and grant the employee time off on the terms in which he or she suggests. Robin acknowledges that these aren’t good options and ends her article by saying, An employer should be able to keep its business running when an employee has to miss a significant amount of work on an unpredictable basis. I wish the DOL would provide employers with some workable solutions that are legal. But I’m not going to hold my breath.”

What are your thoughts on this tricky HR issue?

Photo Source: Muffet

New FMLA Posters Must Be Up by March 8, 2013

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

John GuptonIn CAI’s Monday member newsletter, Advice and Counsel Team Member John Gupton shared new regulations published by the US Department of Labor (DOL). The DOL issued a final rule implementing two important expansions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

  1. Provides families of eligible veterans with the same job-protected FMLA leave currently available to families of military service members, and it enables more military families to take leave for activities that arise when a service member is deployed.
  2. Modifies existing rules so that airline personnel and flight crews are better able to make use of FMLA’s protections.

The new FMLA rule implemented Congressional amendments to the FMLA permitting eligible workers to take up to 26 workweeks of leave to care for a current service member with a serious injury or illness. Congress also created qualifying exigency leave, which permits eligible employees to take up to 12 workweeks of leave for qualifying exigencies arising out of active duty or call to active duty in support of a contingency operation of a family member serving in the National Guard or Reserve. The final rule also includes amendments clarifying the application of the FMLA to airline personnel and flight crews. Until the amendments, many flight crews did not meet FMLA eligibility criteria due to the unique way in which their hours are counted.

In addition to the newest regulations, the DOL released a new FMLA poster. Employers covered by the FMLA must put up the poster no later than March 8, 2013. At CAI, we are in the process of revising our combined Federal poster for members. However, the updated poster will not be available for distribution to our members before the March 8, 2013 posting deadline.

For more information, including the new rule, a military leave guide, fact sheets and other materials, visit http://j.mp/13-fm. You can also call CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746 to go over the FMLA updates.

7 Takeaways from the 2012 Triad Employment Law Update

Thursday, November 15th, 2012

Last Wednesday, Nov. 7, CAI hosted its annual Triad Employment Law Update at the Koury Center in Greensboro. More than 160 HR professionals and company executives attended the conference to receive the latest updates in state and federal employment law.

Lawyers from Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP shared presentations with attendees on a number of topics related to recent changes in regulations. Some of the topics covered included updates from the new NLRB, best practices for immigration law compliance and changes from healthcare reform.

Below are seven key insights from the informative law update:

NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) Social Media Policy

  • Employees using social media to complain about their employers may be engaged in protected concerted activity under NLRA
      • Protected posts: seeking advice from coworkers, calling supervisors names, criticizing company actions
      • Unprotected posts: don’t involve other employees or individual gripes, criticizing the company’s clients and complaints to third parties
  • The board continues to offer policy guidance on a variety of social media cases

EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) Issues Final ADAAA (American’s with Disabilities Amendments Act) Regulations

  • Eliminated “per se” list of covered disabilities
  • Rejects minimum duration rule that results in short term condition being a disability

New EEOC Regulation on Age Discrimination

  • November 16, 2011—EEOC approves final regulation
    • Now easier for plaintiffs to prove age discrimination in disparate impact cases
    • Facially neutral practices that adversely impact older employees is discriminatory unless employer can prove “reasonable factor other than age”

OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs) and Proposed Rule on Hiring Goals for Disabled

  • Proposed rule requires federal contractors to set a goal that 7 percent of each job group should be persons with disabilities
    • Require applicants to self-identify as disabled

Correct Your I-9s

  • In general, never do a new I-9,  no matter how bad the errors
    • Common errors that can be fixed: employee didn’t sign, employee didn’t date, employee didn’t fill in “A” number, employee didn’t fill in expiration date, employer didn’t fill in date of hire, employer didn’t fill in street address of company
    • Errors that can’t be fixed: not completing form within three days of hire and missing information from former employees

Avoiding Whistleblower and Retaliation Claims

  • Whistleblower: employer violation of law, rule or regulation
  • Retaliation: related to employee’s individual rights
  • The following are protected from retaliation:
    • current employees, former employees, job applicants and associates of those employees who engage in  protected activity
  • Three elements make up a claim:
    • Protected activity, adverse action and causal connection
    • Employee must have a good faith belief that there was a violation of a law when they engaged in protected activity (Title VII)

Effects of Healthcare Reform

  • Several mandates and changes become effective
    • Implementing external review processes
    • W-2 reporting of the value of employer provided health benefits
    • Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) to be given to all participants at enrollment and at each subsequent annual open enrollment
    • Automatic enrollment for employers with more than 200 full-time employees will be required for new full-time employees, with an opt-out notice
    • Health flexible spending account limit will be $2,500

For further assistance on staying compliant with state and federal employment laws, please call a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.