On June 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in King v. Burwell, ruling that Section 36B of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) authorizes insurance exchanges run by the federal government to issue tax subsidies like their state-run counterparts. The 6-3 decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

The case involved whether Section 36B of the ACA permits only state-run exchanges to issue tax subsidies to qualifying purchasers of coverage.  That Section defines “premium assistance amount” in part by referring to insurance plans that are enrolled in “an Exchange established by the State.”  The absence of any reference to federal exchanges in these portions of Section 36B led opponents of the Act to argue that only state-run exchanges have the power to issue ACA tax subsidies.  Since only 16 states (plus the District of Columbia) elected to run their own exchanges, the opponents’ position, if adopted, could have made ACA tax subsidies unavailable to residents of 34 states (including Pennsylvania) – and may have rendered the “individual mandate” penalty unenforceable in those states.

The preliminary issue facing the Court was whether the Act, and specifically Section 36B, was ambiguous with respect to its use of the phrase “Exchange established by the State.” Acknowledging that the ACA is replete with “more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” Justice Roberts recited a number of passages in the ACA in which Congress blurred the distinction between state-run and federal exchanges. Given this ambiguity, the Court looked to the greater context of the Act and legislative intent. Finding ample provisions in the Act to support the notion of subsidies being issued by all exchanges, the Court ruled that Congress intended the Act to be interpreted to allow for such subsidies. Otherwise, the Court surmised, the individual insurance markets in states with federal exchanges may experience a “death spiral” – a result that the ACA was intended to prevent.

In sum, the Court found that the opponents of the law were arguing that “Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-sub-sub section of the Tax Code.  We doubt that is what Congress meant to do.”

Employers with 50-99 employees are expected to comply with the “pay or play” provisions of the Act in 2016.  For those employers that have already begun to plan to comply, today’s decision is an endorsement to “carry on.”  For employers that have delayed planning in hopes that the Supreme Court would derail the ACA, it is now time to catch-up.

If you have any questions regarding this article or the ACA, please contact any member of our Labor and Employment Practice Group.

In Part 1 of this post, we explored the three types of work related mental injury claims addressed by the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. In Part 2, we discussed how courts are increasingly easing the burden of proving abnormal working conditions. Now, we will discuss practical steps you can take to ensure you are not faced with a workers’ compensation claim for a mental condition completely unrelated to the workplace.

There are, of course, many reasons why people experience unhappiness or depression or feelings of insecurity or imbalance completely unrelated to their work environment:

Family Situations

  • a parent and a child do not talk to each other;
  • a spouse has left a marriage;
  • a wife is physically incapable of having a child;
  • a spouse is abusive, physically or emotionally;
  • a spouse is drug dependent or alcohol dependent;
  • a spouse has had an extramarital affair;
  • a parent suffers from Alzheimer’s or Dementia requiring the son or daughter to institutionalize him or her;
  • an adult experiences for the first time memories of abuse inflicted years earlier by a parent or other family member;
  • a parent’s child is killed or physically harmed;
  • a parent’s child suffers from a dysfunctional condition such as Attention Deficit Disorder or Schizophrenia or becomes drug dependent or has encounters with law enforcement

 Self-Induced Depression

  • the individual experiences anger/frustration over his or her lack of achievement, e.g. failing to land a job promotion or having never attended college;
  • the individual is inherently self-driven due to family expectations or unrealistic self-expectations;
  • an individual experiences frustration/anger over his or her confrontation with middle age;
  • the individual experiences delusions of grandeur causing profound employee dissatisfaction with job;

Other Causes

  • seemingly unrelated non-work related psychiatric conditions such as “histrionic personality syndrome” resulting indirectly in the filing of a workers’ compensation claim;
  • a false claim filed for purposes of secondary gain or monetary reward

What many lawyers fail to consider and investigate, are the circumstances surrounding, and leading up to, the occurrence of the mental injury at issue.  The lawyer who explores and analyzes those circumstances has a distinct advantage over the lawyer who does nothing more than respond to the basic allegations of the claim.

Employers, adjusters and nurse case managers can greatly assist their lawyers by conducting a thorough investigation after notice of a “stress claim.”  Some investigation best practices are as follows:

  • Conduct a thorough interview of the employee, ask questions about history of mental health treatment or diagnoses and ask about any other potential contributing factors.
  • Review employee’s attendance record for a history/pattern of absences that may be related to a stress or mental health reasons.
  • Obtain a HIPAA  and mental health release allowing the release of mental health information by the employee’s treating doctors and then obtain such records; also look for increased blood pressure, sleep disorders and cardiovascular disease, which may be related to non work stressors.
  • Speak to supervisors and co-workers to determine if the employee has mentioned any stress related issues in the past.
  • Investigate the working condition the employee alleges is abnormal or that led to the mental injury claim. Is it truly abnormal? Did the employee’s job recently change? Were there any reports of problems, issues or concerns prior to receiving notice of the claim? Have similar incidents occurred with other employees and is there any training provided to employees regarding such situations, etc?

Once the facts have been investigated, it is the responsibility of the attorney to present the facts to the workers’ compensation judge from the proper perspective.  Proper development of the facts, including the events leading up to the claim, ultimately allows defense counsel to provide the workers’ compensation judge with the full flavor of the dispute.

If you have questions regarding an alleged work-related stress or mental injury claim, please contact Paul Clouser or Denise Elliott in the Lancaster office.

In Part 1 of this blog post, we explored the three legal classifications of potentially work related mental injury claims addressed under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act: physical/mental, mental/physical, and mental/mental. In this part, we will take a closer look at the rapidly developing area of mental/mental cases. We will also provide practical advice on how you can protect your company from mental stress claims in Part 3 of this post.

As you will recall from Part 1, to succeed in establishing a Workers’ Compensation claim for a mental/mental injury (mental stimulus/mental injury), the employee must demonstrate that the injury resulted from an abnormal working condition. Historically, this has been a difficult burden for employees to meet. Consider, for example, the convenience store hold-up cases, where a convenience store clerk is held-up at gun point, is not physically touched or harmed, but suffers from anxiety, panic attacks and PTSD thereafter. In such cases, the employee cannot meet his/her burden of proving an abnormal working condition because, hold-ups are common in the industry, clerks are told as such, and clerks are trained regarding what to expect and how to handle a hold-up.

Recently, however, the courts have begun to ease the burden of proving abnormal working conditions.

In Payes v. WCAB (2013), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court notably eased the burden of proof in mental/mental cases, by holding that mental injury cases are highly fact-sensitive and that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”), as fact finder, must be given broad latitude in determining whether or not “abnormal working conditions” exist, given the specific facts of each individual case. In Payes, a State Trooper sustained PTSD after striking and killing a pedestrian who ran in front of his patrol car while he was traveling to the barracks. The WCJ awarded benefits, but the Appeal Board ruled in favor of the employer, finding that there was no abnormal working condition.  The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that a police officer can be expected to witness horrible tragedy and that “it is not beyond the realm of possibility for an officer to have to take someone’s life.” Further, the Court found it was normal for a police officer to administer first aid, including CPR, to a crash victim and that not all first aid attempts are successful.

The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the trooper was entitled to an award of benefits caused by “a singular extraordinary event occurring during [the claimant’s] work shift.” An abnormal working condition was found to exist, even though state troopers are routinely exposed to vehicle accidents, mayhem, bodily injury, death, murder and violent acts, in the normal course of their duties.  In this case, the death was found to be a “suicide by cop” situation, in which the responding officer was also placed in the zone of danger due to oncoming traffic, while attempting to revive the decedent, prior to the arrival of emergency personnel. The Supreme Court held that a State Trooper is not normally exposed to a mentally disturbed individual running in front of his vehicle, thus requiring the Trooper to perform CPR on such individual on a busy interstate highway. The lesson from Payes is that deference will be given to the fact finder, the WCJ, in these cases, to decide whether or not an abnormal working condition exists.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court followed the Supreme Court’s lead in Payes, by vacating and remanding a mental/mental case to the WCJ, for further consideration as to whether an armed robbery of the general manager of a check cashing business involved an “abnormal working condition.” The manager and her husband were abducted at gunpoint while opening the store. The husband was handcuffed and forced into the backseat of the gunman’s car, while the Claimant was led into the office at gunpoint, shoved to the ground and hog-tied. A panic button she had been given by her employer was inoperable, although she was eventually able to free herself and call 911. Following the assault, Claimant had regular nightmares, panic attacks, bouts of crying, and difficulty getting dressed or bathed.  She was diagnosed with PTSD as a direct result of the armed robbery. Noting that Claimant had been trained on how to respond in the event of a robbery and that a robbery was foreseeable and more than just a remote possibility, the WCJ nevertheless found no abnormal working condition. On remand, however, the Court held that the Judge is obligated to consider the facts surrounding this specific robbery, in deciding whether abnormal working conditions were present. Murphy v. WCAB (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2015).

The trend toward compensability of stress claims is likely to continue in Pennsylvania, based on these developments.  Accordingly, employers would be wise to consider taking steps to reduce potential exposure to such claims.  A thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the filing of a claim for workers’ compensation benefits is perhaps the most important initial step to take.  Why?  Because there are so many causes for psychological or psychiatric conditions. We will explore this more in Part 3, tomorrow!

Quick. Answer this: if one of your employees tells his supervisor that he needs surgery and will miss 2-3 weeks of work, do your managers know what to do? Do they call the employee’s surgeon? (NO!) Do they know who to speak with in HR and can they identify the above scenario as a potentially FMLA-qualifying event? Does your HR team know the steps to take when they become aware that an employee may need FMLA leave (including making an initial decision regarding potential eligibility and issuing a Notice of Rights and Responsibilities to the employee)? If not, consider training your managers, supervisors, and entire HR team on your company’s leave of absence management process.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are on the hunt for violators of the complex federal law known as the Family and Medical Leave Act—even the smallest of errors can result in significant liability. And what’s one of your best defenses that even the courts recognize? Training!

Under the FMLA, an employee is entitled to liquidated (i.e. double) damages if an employer has violated the Act. What does this mean in plain English? Well, if an employer is found to have violated the FMLA and an employee has suffered $50,000 in damages, the damages are automatically doubled to $100,000 unless the employer’s violation of the law was in good faith. How does an employer demonstrate good faith? One federal court in Indiana recently wrote that “[e]vidence of whether the [employer] provided proper training, adhered to policies, and engaged human resource and FMLA personnel will assist the trier of fact in assessing” whether the employer’s actions were in good faith.

Training your managers and supervisors on FMLA issues just makes sense. With proper training, you can avoid an FMLA claim altogether—and if a manager or supervisor does err in implementing the FMLA, evidence that your company educated managers and supervisors on the law will prevent you from incurring double damages.

For more information on FMLA training and other training programs you can provide your workforce, check out the McNees Training Academy!

Mental injury claims, often stemming from workplace stressors, are on the rise and can create major headaches for employers. Understanding the relationship between stress in the workplace and resulting mental and physical disorders, such as psychiatric disorders or cardiovascular disease, isn’t easy.  Often there are more questions than answers. Can stress lead to anxiety attacks or depression? Can job induced stress cause your blood pressure to rise? Could it cause a heart attack or cardiac condition? How do we separate work-related from non-work related causes?

A recent estimate from the National Institutes of Health projected that the cost to the American economy of stress related health claims is close to $150 billion per year.  The cost is reflected in decreased productivity, absenteeism and massive increases in medical treatment costs.  Accordingly, it is not uncommon for corporations to spend millions of dollars each year on “stress management” programs.  As claims of stress-related mental illness and cardiovascular injury continue to rise, it becomes increasingly important for companies to be able to distinguish cases of compensable work-related stress from other non-compensable situations.  To do so, the employer must have a good working knowledge of some of the medical concepts associated with stress, and the legal framework within which these concepts will be applied.  To assist employers in this regard, Part 1 of this blog post will provide an overview of the general concepts and part 2 will explore some of the more recent Pennsylvania cases.

Employers familiar with mental injury claims will recall that Pennsylvania law distinguishes between three (3) types of mental injury cases – – physical/mental (a physical stimulus causing mental injury), mental/physical (a mental or emotional experience causing physical consequences), and pure mental/mental cases (mental or emotional stimulus causing purely emotional sequelae).

The above distinctions are important because differing burdens of proof apply depending on the proper categorization of the case.  In physical/mental and mental/physical cases, the Claimant need only establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her injuries arose in the course and scope of employment.  A higher burden of proof, however, attaches to mental/mental injuries and to prevail in these cases, the Claimant must demonstrate the presence of “abnormal working conditions.”

The best example of a “physical/mental” case involves an amputation or orthopedic injury of sufficient severity to necessitate later psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment for a condition such as depression or PTSD.  The mirror image of the physical/mental case is the so-called “mental/physical” case, which involves a work-related mental stimulus, triggering physical injury or illness.  Sometimes a heart attack or cardiac condition can qualify as a compensable event under this standard. A determination of causal connectedness to work often depends on medical evidence and opinion.  Although employees often file claims for depression and anxiety caused by general workplace stress, these claims usually are not compensable, because these are mental/mental claims and the abnormal work condition requirement is difficult to meet. Although difficult to prove, mental/mental cases, where an alleged abnormal working condition creates a mental stressor that in turn produces a mental or emotional disability, are the most hotly litigated.  These are highly fact specific cases with significant emotional investment by the Claimant. The heightened burden of proof (i.e. presence of an abnormal working condition) is typically found to have been met only where a mental disability is directly caused by a violation of law, such as sex, age, race or disability discrimination, or by some workplace event that is totally unexpected and abnormal with respect to Claimant’s specific employment (i.e. a police officer who witnesses a shooting has not necessarily been exposed to an abnormal working condition, absent additional facts).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held benefits were proper in a mental/mental case involving a coal miner with a pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder.  The pre-existing condition, of which the employer was aware, had been caused by unwelcome homosexual propositions from his commanding officer, while initially serving in the U.S. Army in Vietnam.  The worker successfully argued that his underlying condition was materially aggravated by a series of three incidents over eight (8) days, during which his boss made comments in the presence of other workers, implying that he wanted to have sex with Claimant.  The employer offered testimony to establish that the comments were no different from the regular crude banter that often takes place between coal miners, and therefore did not constitute abnormal working conditions.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, noting that there had been sufficient evidence of a “course of conduct on the part of a supervisory employee, clearly calculated to cause severe emotional distress.”  Accordingly, the claimant met his burden of showing that he suffered from a mental injury, which involved more than a mere subjective reaction to normal working conditions.  RAG & (Cyprus) Emerald Resources v. WCAB (PA Supreme Court 2007).

With the foregoing legal framework in mind, in Part 2 of this blog post, we will explore more recent developments in the mental/mental line of cases and provide some practical insights as to how you can protect your company from work-related stress claims.

No, we’re not talking about the skit performed by the McNees Players at our recent Labor and Employment Seminar. In a recent case out of a Pennsylvania federal court, an employee alleged that she suffered from a fragrance allergy and “multiple chemical sensitivity” to fragrant chemicals, perfumes and scented lotions, which impacted her in several ways, including migraines, nausea and difficulty concentrating and focusing. After suffering for several years, she informed her employer of her sensitivity and asked for a “fragrance-free zone” at work. Over the course of the next ten months, the employer made various accommodations, including providing (and later replacing) an air purifier for her desk, relocating her workstation, purchasing face masks (which she refused to wear), distributing a “no fragrance memo” to employees (no less than four times), and cleaning and replacing the panels of her work station. The employee continued to suffer the adverse effects of her allergy and even took a brief medical leave, for which she was subsequently notified was FMLA-eligible.

Despite these efforts, the employee continued to suffer adverse effects and was unable to work her full schedule. She ultimately took additional time off and was notified that she was potentially eligible for leave under the FMLA. However, just one week after submitting a request for medical leave- and before receiving a response- she was terminated, allegedly for her failure to regularly report to work and consistently perform her essential job functions. The employee filed suit alleging FMLA, ADA and PHRA violations, and the employer subsequently sought summary judgment.

In reviewing the employer’s request for summary judgment, the court was not convinced that the employee was ineligible for FMLA leave as argued by the employer, both because her request could be construed as a request for intermittent or reduced leave and the employer had notified the employee less than two weeks before her termination that she was potentially eligible for such leave, and further, that there was evidence of retaliation and a pretextual reason for her firing.  The court also found that the employee offered enough evidence to meet the definitions of disability (under both the old and new ADA standards) and qualified individual, as well as “at least some evidence of… hostility” towards the employee as a result of her condition in regards to her ADA and PHRA claims of disability discrimination. As it had in regards to retaliation, the court opined that the employee provided sufficient evidence to show that the employer’s reason for terminating her was pretextual.

In denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all counts, the court’s opinion provides a few key reminders about the FMLA:

  • Terminating an employee who has made a valid FMLA leave request may amount to interference and retaliation, which are both prohibited under the FMLA.
  • Intermittent or reduced leave is permissible under the FMLA.
  • Timing may be “unusually suggestive of retaliatory motive.”

Remember this one about the employee fired for legal drug use? How about this one? It seems that we have been talking more about the impact of legal marijuana use on employment since 2012, when voters in Colorado and Washington lit up (pun intended) the blogosphere, with their landmark votes to legalize its recreational use.  Since then, many states have legalized both recreational and medicinal use.

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday (in a 6-0 decision) ruled in favor of Dish Network LLC, finding that the Company did not violate the state’s “lawful activities statute” when it terminated a quadriplegic in 2010 for a positive drug test, because the employee’s medical use of marijuana was lawful under state law.  That’s good news for national employers that, like Dish Network, are committed to complying with federal drug statutes.

Legalization hasn’t hit Pennsylvania just yet.  Last month, the Pennsylvania Senate overwhelmingly approved Senate Bill 3, which would allow registered patients to use medical cannabis and to safely access it from regulated dispensaries.  If passed in its current form, SB3 would prohibit discrimination in employment against a cannabis access cardholder and an employer could take that status into account “only if the employer can prove the employee is abusing or misusing the employee’s medical cannabis on the premises of the place of employment during ordinary hours of employment or if failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a licensing benefit under Federal law or regulation.”

So far, we haven’t recommended that Pennsylvania employers abandon their zero-tolerance drug testing policies.  Instead, we have cautioned that where an employee’s use of the substance is lawful (recreational or medicinal), there may be a challenge if the employer elects to proceed with termination. The good news is, for now, some early challenges are being turned back.

Again, in its current form, SB3 provides that a positive drug test “may not be considered by an employer unless the individual unlawfully used, possessed or was impaired by the medical cannabis while on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.”  So, it seems that a positive test result (pre-employment or random) would trigger a need for further investigation, or an interactive process akin to that under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The employer would need to ascertain whether the applicant or employee is a “cannabis access cardholder” and whether the employee was impaired while on the premises or during working hours.

Stay tuned . . .

This post was contributed by Ambria Armstrong, a Summer Associate with McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC. Ms. Armstrong is a law student at William & Mary Law School and is expected to earn her J.D. in May 2016.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that all employers covered by the OSH Act provide employees with sanitary toilet facilities so that employees will not suffer adverse health effects if toilets are not available when employees need them. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, an estimated 700,000 adults in the United States are transgender. In some workplaces, transgender employees have been unable to utilize the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

On the same day that Olympic Athlete Caitlyn Jenner (formerly known as Bruce Jenner) appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine to announce to the world that she had transitioned from male to female and just a few days before the Pennsylvania Senate voted 49-0 to confirm Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, as the Commonwealth’s new Physician General, OSHA issued guidance titled “A Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers.”

What does it mean to be transgender? According to the Human Rights Campaign, transgender people are individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them at birth. Gender identity is a person’s innate, deeply-felt psychological identification as a man, woman, or some other gender. Per the OSHA guidance, “a transgender man may have been assigned female at birth and raised as a girl, but identify as a man. Many transgender people transition to live their everyday life as the gender they identify with. Thus, a transgender man may transition from living as a woman to living as a man” and vice versa. Transition might include social changes (including names and clothing), medical steps, or changes to identification documents. “Sex” and “Gender” also have different meanings. Sex refers to the designation of a person at birth as male or female based on their anatomy and hormones, whereas gender refers to the cultural roles, behaviors, and attributes expected for men and women.

OSHA makes a number of recommendations for companies to take to ensure that all employees are permitted to use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity—meaning that a person who identifies as a man should be permitted to use the men’s restroom and a person who identifies as a woman should be permitted to use the women’s restroom. In addition to this overarching principle, OSHA recommends that employers:

  1. Consider providing optional alternative bathroom facilities such as single-occupancy gender-neutral facilities or the use of multiple-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls.
  2. Do not ask transgender or transitioning employees for any medical or legal documentation of their gender identity in order for them to have access to gender-appropriate facilities.
  3. Do not limit transgender employees to facilities that are an unreasonable distance or travel time from the employee’s worksite.
  4. Above all, be respectful and ensure all employees are treated with dignity and are free from harassment. Do not make assumptions, and if in doubt about which name or pronoun to use, ask (appropriately and respectfully). Education is key, and open conversations are essential.

While not strictly necessary, employers may wish to consider adding “gender identity” (and “sexual orientation”) to non-discrimination policies. While neither Pennsylvania nor federal anti-discrimination laws list “gender identity” as a protected trait, the EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of “sex” and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Need help developing transgender policies or procedures? Give us a call.

We have been updating you on a class action lawsuit pending in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas challenging a Pennsylvania employer’s use of payroll debit cards to pay wages to its employees. May was a busy month for that case, with troubling implications for Pennsylvania employers who utilize this wage payment option.

First, as we previously noted, Judge Thomas F. Burke, Jr. certified a class of 2,380 former or current employees of a McDonald’s franchisee as plaintiffs in that case, captioned as Siciliano et al. v. Albert/Carol Mueller T-A McDonalds et al.

Next, on May 29, Judge Burke issued an opinion and order holding that the defendant employer violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) when it paid the plaintiff class members with payroll debit cards. Judge Burke held that the “plain language of the WPCL” provides that employees must be paid “in lawful money of the United States or check.” Judge Burke concluded that payroll debit cards are neither “lawful money” or “check” and, therefore, violated this provision of the WPCL.

In his opinion, Judge Burke referenced the fact that this provision of the WPCL was drafted in 1961, long before the advent of payroll debit cards. He also noted that this case presented an issue of first impression for the Pennsylvania courts and issued an order allowing the defendants to file an immediate interlocutory appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court to seek review of this issue. Judge Burke also invited the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry to issue a formal opinion on the issue and mentioned pending proposed legislation in the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would expressly authorize use of payroll debit cards by employers. It appears that Judge Burke issued his decision somewhat reluctantly, as he seemingly felt confined by what he believes is the plain language of a statute enacted more than 50 years ago.

The defendants in Siciliano required that their employees be paid exclusively by payroll debit cards, and Judge Burke’s Opinion did not indicate whether the voluntary and optional use of payroll debit cards by employees would also violate the WPCL. However, the reasoning in Judge Burke’s decision seemingly would support the notion that any use of payroll debit cards by employers in Pennsylvania could violate the WPCL, as such use would constitute the payment of wages by means other than “lawful money of the United States or check.”

We expect more definitive guidance on this issue in the future, either in the form of an appellate decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, a formal opinion issued by the Department of Labor and Industry, or legislative action expressly authorizing the use of payroll debit cards and establishing the conditions for their use in Pennsylvania. Until such guidance comes, the Siciliano decision confirms that the use of payroll debit cards is risky in Pennsylvania, especially if the employer does not provide other wage payment options for its employees.

Stay tuned . . .