Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog : Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : McNees Wallace & Nurick Law Firm : Human Resources, Workplace and Business Law : Harrisburg, Lancaster, Allentown, Lehigh

Members of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Litigation Group published a Litigation Newsletter that contains an article that may be of interest to readers of our blog. The article, "The Internet – The Next Frontier for the ADA: Will Your Website Comply?" discusses a recent notice issued by the Department of Justice, which indicates that the Department is considering adopting accessibility guidelines for websites under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Please click here to view the Litigation Newsletter.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Eric N. Athey, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Law Practice Group.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") (pdf), otherwise known as the Health Care Reform Law, is hundreds of pages long and contains dozens of requirements affecting employers, health care providers and group health plans. Implementation of these new requirements will be staggered over the next eight years, with many of the most sweeping changes taking effect in 2014. However, for some employers and plans, a very important implementation date is imminent.

When Must Your Plan Comply?  Group health plans and health insurance issuers are required to comply with a host of PPACA's requirements by the first "plan year" beginning on or after September 23, 2010. For plans that operate on a calendar plan year basis, this means a compliance deadline of January 1, 2011. Employers who are uncertain of the start date of their next plan year should find it in the "general information" section at the back of their plan booklet or consult their employee benefits professional.

Requirements Affecting All Plans.  There are two types of requirements that will take effect for the upcoming plan year – the first group applies to all group health plans and the second applies only to plans that are considered "non-grandfathered" under recently issued interim federal regulations (pdf). The requirements that apply to all plans are as follows:

• Extension of dependent coverage to children up to age 26;
• Elimination of lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits and gradual elimination of annual limits;
• Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions for children under age 19;
• Elimination of retroactive rescissions of coverage (except for fraud, misrepresentation and non-payment);
•  Elimination of reimbursement for most over-the-counter medications under HRAs, HSAs and FSAs and an increased excise tax for non-qualified distributions under these plans (effective January 1, 2011).

Additional Requirements for Non-Grandfathered Plans.  As noted above, non-grandfathered plans have several additional requirements to comply with for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. A non-grandfathered plan is one that was either established after March 23, 2010 or which existed beforehand but lost grandfathered status by making a disqualifying change to benefits after that date. These additional requirements include:Additional Requirements for Non-Grandfathered Plans. As noted above, non-grandfathered plans have several additional requirements to comply with for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. A non-grandfathered plan is one that was either established after March 23, 2010 or which existed beforehand but lost grandfathered status by making a disqualifying change to benefits after that date. These additional requirements include:

• Implementation of certain non-cost preventive health services;
• Implementation of new required appeals processes;
• Compliance with rules prohibiting discrimination in favor of highly compensate individuals for fully insured plans; and
• Protection of a participant's right to designate a primary care physician; and
• Implementation of a participant's right to obtain emergency care and OB-GYN services without prior authorization

Although opponents of PPACA hope to repeal the law through the election process or block its enforcement via litigation , those efforts will likely take years to be resolved. The requirements listed above take effect in the near term and employers should work with their benefits professionals to ensure that their plans are up to date by the first plan year following September 23, 2010. For additional information regarding these requirements and the "grandfathering" regulations, consult our prior posts or contact any of the attorneys in our Labor and Employment Group.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Bruce D. Bagley, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Practice Group.  

In its first major ruling since being reconstituted by President Obama, the Democrat-controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has rejected the position of the NLRB's General Counsel and has determined that stationary bannering does not violate Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local Union No. 1506, 355 NLRB No. 159 (2010). This decision gives labor unions a powerful weapon: the ability to pressure a secondary (neutral) employer and its customers, in order to gain leverage over the primary employer with whom the union actually has its dispute. The facts in United Brotherhood illustrate the point below.

The Carpenters Union had primary labor disputes with four construction contractors in Arizona, claiming that the contractors failed to pay wages and benefits in accord with "area standards." In furtherance of its primary disputes, the Union protested at two hospitals and a restaurant, secondary employers with whom the Union had no primary dispute. The four construction contractors had engaged in construction work at the sites of the secondary employers.
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to "threaten, coerce, or restrain" a secondary employer where an object is to cause the secondary employer to cease doing business with the primary employer. At issue in United Brotherhood was whether the Union's conduct in "bannering" was the equivalent of picketing, which would have been clearly unlawful, or more like non-coercive peaceful "handbilling," which clearly would have been lawful.

At each of the secondary employers' locations the Union displayed a large stationary banner, either stating "Shame On __________," naming the hospital, or "Don't Eat At __________," naming the restaurant. The banners were three or four feet high and from 15 to 20 feet long. The banners were held in place at each location by two or three Union representatives. The banners were placed anywhere from 15 to 1,050 feet from the nearest entry to the secondaries' establishments. The Union representatives also offered flyers to anyone who would take them, explaining therein that the Union's underlying complaint was with the construction contractors, and that by using these contractors, the hospital or restaurant was contributing to the undermining of area wage standards.

At noted above, the NLRB's General Counsel (as well as the Charging Parties) argued that bannering was the equivalent of picketing, that "picketing exists where a union posts individuals at or near the entrance to a place of business for the purpose of influencing customers, suppliers, and employees to support the union's position in a labor dispute." But a majority of the NLRB disagreed (the two Republican appointees dissenting), finding that bannering was not picketing or its equivalent, because there was no "confrontational" conduct, such as patrolling back and forth in front of the entrance while carrying placards. Absent confrontational conduct, the majority concluded, bannering was more like peaceful handbilling, an exercise in "free speech," and therefore did not "threaten, coerce, or restrain" the secondary employers as would picketing.

There was a vigorous dissent by the minority members of the NLRB, who concluded there was no meaningful distinction between bannering and picketing. All parties would have agreed that a single picketer patrolling back and forth with a sign saying "Don't Eat Here Because This Restaurant Was Built With Non-Union Labor" would be engaged in unlawful secondary boycott picketing. Yet the NLRB's majority would find that three union protesters holding a much larger banner saying the same thing would not be engaged in unlawful conduct because the bannering allegedly does not rise to the level of confrontational conduct!

It will be interesting to see how this decision may be viewed by the reviewing federal Courts of Appeal. In any event, it provides a dramatic example of how the present Obama Board may construe the NLRA in an effort to expand the weaponry and capabilities of organized labor.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Anthony D. Dick, Esq., an Associate and a member of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Practice Group in Columbus, Ohio.

Most employers have at least some basic understanding of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability. Fewer are aware that the ADA contains separate provisions concerning public accommodation requirements for businesses open to the public. In its most basic form, Title III of the ADA requires virtually all facilities open to the public - including restaurants, hotels, motels, retailers, medical facilities, health clubs, museums, libraries, parks, day care facilities and entertainment venues - to remove architectural and communications barriers from their facilities to ensure access to persons with disabilities. The driving force behind the statute is to allow persons with disabilities to participate equally in the goods and services offered by places of public accommodation.

In conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the ADA’s enactment, the Department of Justice recently rolled out several new revisions to the ADA public accommodation regulations. In implementing the new regulations, the Department of Justice has made clear that the new standards should be viewed as “more than incremental changes” to the previously applicable 1991 standards. To that end, in many ways, the new regulations create heightened accessibility requirements for public accommodations.

It is important to note that the new rules contain a “safe harbor” provision. Covered entities that were built or altered in compliance with the 1991 standard will not be required to comply with the 2010 standards unless or until existing facilities are altered in the future. However, new requirements that were not a part of the 1991 standards are not subject to the safe harbor provision. Businesses should begin planning now to achieve compliance with the 2010 standards with regard to these new elements.

The new regulations modify the 1991 standards with respect to single toilet user rooms, reach ranges, assembly areas, common use circulation paths in employee work areas, fitting rooms, disbursement of accessible guest rooms in places of public lodging, accessible parking, urinals, and sales and service counters – just to name a few. Additionally, the new regulations address a number of brand new accommodation requirements for golf and miniature golf courses, amusement park rides, playgrounds, swimming pools, exercise equipment and other public accommodations.

The latest regulations targeting barriers to places of public accommodation specifically include the following:

Service Animals
The new ADA regulations now make clear that only dogs (and in limited circumstances miniature horses) can act as service animals. To qualify as a service animal, the dog must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a disabled individual. Under the new rules, animals that merely provide emotional support and comfort to their owners do not qualify as service animals. The new rules also contain provisions regarding what questions a provider of a public accommodation may ask a person purporting to be with a service animal.

Wheelchair and Other Mobility Device Accessibility
The regulations mandate that public accommodations allow the use of wheelchairs and manually powered mobility aids in all areas open to the public. According to the new rules, public accommodations must also permit the use of “other power-driven mobility devices” (e.g. golf carts, Segways, etc.) unless they can show the use of such devices would create a safety hazard to others. The burden is on the provider of the public accommodation to show that the mobility device creates a safety hazard if it wishes to limit or exclude their use on the business’ premises.

Lodging Reservations
The regulations also contain new provisions that will have a significant impact on how hotels and other places of lodging do business. Key provisions include a requirement that hotels and other places of public lodging hold back accessible rooms until they are the last to sell. Additionally, handicap accessible rooms may no longer be double booked by hotel staff. Further, hotel reservation systems must identify the accessible features of the hotel and its guest rooms so that disabled persons may make an informed decision when choosing where to seek lodging.

Conclusion
The new regulations implementing the above-described changes are tedious and contain a multitude of caveats and intricacies. Business owners should sit down with legal counsel, designers and key personnel to develop a full understanding of the new regulations so that policies and practices can be appropriately modified to ensure ADA compliance. A failure to do so could lead to substantial expense in the form of avoidable lawsuits and civil penalties to the business.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link