On May 3, 2010, we posted information about what was then a little known provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (pdf): the requirement that employers provide reasonable unpaid breaks for nursing mothers to express breast milk. Recently, the Department of Labor issued Fact Sheet #73: Break Time for Nursing Mothers under the FLSA (the "Fact Sheet"). The Fact Sheet clarifies the unpaid break provision of the PPACA. 

Essentially, the PPACA requires that employers provide reasonable, unpaid break time and a private space for mothers to express breast milk for children up to one year in age.  There is an exemption for small employers, those with fewer than 50 employees, if the PPACA’s requirements would pose an undue hardship. 

The Fact Sheet clarifies that employers need not provide the break to those employees who are considered FLSA exempt. It also makes clear that while the breaks are unpaid, if employees are not completely relieved from duty during the breaks, then they must be compensated for the time.

The Fact Sheet also clarifies that the private space to be provide does not have to be dedicated solely to breast feeding. However, if it is not, the space must be available when needed, as well as shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public. 

The Fact Sheet also states that the small employer "undue hardship" exemption will be analyzed by examining the difficulty or expensive of compliance, with reference to "the size, financial resources, nature and structure of the employer’s business." 

Employers should evaluate their practices with regards to breaks for breastfeeding mothers to ensure compliance with the PPACA, as clarified by the Fact Sheet.  

This post was contributed by Eric N. Athey, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group, and Stephen R. Kern, Esq., a Member in the Employee Benefits Practice Group.

Many of the requirements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") will have little meaning until federal agencies issue regulations that clarify the statutory language.  The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service are all charged with issuing regulations to implement the Act.  Since May, these agencies have issued a steady stream of interim regulations regarding a number of the Act’s requirements.  Most recently, on June 22, 2010, the agencies jointly issued interim regulations to implement what have been referred to as the "Patient’s Bill of Rights" provisions of PPACA.  The following provisions will take effect in plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Preexisting Condition Exclusions 
PPACA prohibits a group health plan from imposing any preexisting condition exclusion ("PCE") on any individual under the age of 19. The age limit is eliminated for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. In the interim, HIPAA’s current PCE rules apply. The interim regulations accept the HIPAA definition of a preexisting condition as a health condition or illness that was present before an individual’s effective date of coverage in the health plan, regardless of whether any medical advice was recommended or received before that date. A PCE is any limitation or exclusion of benefits (including a denial of coverage) that applies to an individual due to the individual’s health status before the effective date of coverage under the health plan. A benefit limitation or exclusion is not a PCE, however, if it applies regardless of when the condition arose relative to the effective date of coverage. 

Continue Reading Health Care Reform Update: Interim Regulations Issued for “Patient’s Bill of Rights” Requirements

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

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress established a $5 billion pool to serve as a temporary reinsurance program for employer health plans (insured and self-funded) that provide coverage for eligible early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64.  The program is intended to reimburse plan sponsors for 80% of the cost of an eligible enrollee’s benefits between $15,000 and $90,000. This program will cease upon the earlier of 2014 or depletion of the $5 billion reinsurance pool. Payments are on a first come, first served basis and some believe that the reinsurance pool could be depleted in a matter of days.

As discussed in our June 6, 2010 blog post, the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS) issued interim final regulations (pdf) on May 5, 2010, which set forth the eligibility requirements a plan must meet in order to participate in the program.  However, those regulations did not include a final application that plans could use for purpose of applying for the funds. 

On June 29, 2010, HHS issued a final application for this purpose and announced that applications are now being accepted.  To view the application and related materials, including "Do’s and Don’ts" for submitting the application, click here. 

Since funds are awarded to plans on a first come, first served basis, interested plans should complete and submit the application as soon as possible.

For additional information regarding health care reform, please click here to view the McNees Whitepaper regarding What Employers Need to Know about Health Care Reform. In addition, we will post additional articles on this blog as other regulations are issued.

On June 17, 2010 the United States Supreme Court issued the highly anticipated decision City of Ontario v. Quon (pdf). The case was closely watched by many in the human resources and employment law spheres because it was thought that the case would shed valuable light on employees’ privacy rights in the area of employer-provided electronic devices. The Court admitted that the case raised issues of "far-reaching significance," but nonetheless unanimously decided the case on previously established legal principals, and left many questions unanswered.

Quon was appealing for many reasons, not the least of which were the facts of the case. In 2001, the City of Ontario, California, Police Department issued members of the SWAT team two-way pagers in an effort to help the team mobilize and respond to emergencies quickly. The City had a contract with Arch Wireless Operating Company (Arch), also a party to the litigation, to provide wireless services for the pagers. The City’s "Computer Usage, Internet, and E-Mail Policy" applied to text messages sent via the pagers, and the policy specifically put employees on notice that they should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality.

Quon and other officers exceeded the monthly text message limit many times, but a Lieutenant informed Quon, and others, that if they paid for the excess text messages, he would not audit the text message records to determine whether the excess messages were work-related or personal. Quon and other officers took advantage of this opportunity and paid for the excess text messages. After several months, the Chief of Police determined that an audit should be conducted to determine whether the text message limit was too low, or whether the officers were using the pagers for personal reasons too often. The audit revealed that Quon was "sexting" his wife and his mistress while on duty. Presumably, Quon was disciplined for his actions.

Quon and others filed suit against the City, the Department and the Chief, alleging that the audit violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Quon also filed suit against Arch, alleging a violation of the Stored Communications Act, because Arch turned over the transcripts of the text messages to the Chief. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court (pdf) and held that the City, the Department and the Chief did in fact violate Quon’s Fourth Amendment rights, and held that Arch violated the Stored Communications Act by turning over the text transcripts.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the case only on the Fourth Amendment issue, and therefore, the Stored Communications Act judgment against Arch Wireless remains intact. The Court made many assumptions in its decision, and therefore failed to answer many questions presented by the case. Instead, the Court focused on one narrow issue, i.e. whether the search was "reasonable," to determine the outcome. The Court determined that the review of Quon’s text messages was reasonable, and therefore, not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In order to be reasonable, a public sector employer’s work-related search must be justified before the search, and the search must be reasonably related to the justification and cannot be excessively intrusive. The Court held that the search of Quon’s records was justified because many officers exceeded the text message limit, and the Chief needed to determine whether that was because the limit was too low, or because the officers’ personal usage was too high. The Court also concluded that the scope of the search was appropriately limited. Importantly, the Court noted that it would not have been reasonable for Quon to have concluded that his messages were in all circumstances immune from review. Thus, the search was justified and not excessive, and therefore, there was no Fourth Amendment violation.

While the Quon decision was highly anticipated for many reasons, including the interesting facts and the potentially far-reaching implications of any decision outlining employees’ privacy rights in the workplace, it left many observers wanting more. The decision did leave the door open for both employees and employers to further define the landscape of employees’ privacy rights in the workplace, and dropped clues as to what the Court will consider when the issue of employee privacy appears again.

In addition, the decision was important for public sector employers that provide electronic communication devices to employees. Public sector employers are permitted to "search" electronic records when the search is justified and appropriately limited in scope to the justification. In other words, although not every search is permissible, a well-justified and well-tailored search will not be found to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Finally, all employers, public and private, should make certain that supervisors and managers are properly trained regarding policies related to electronic resources and devices to ensure that they are not waiving any of the employer’s rights to enforce the policy. Therefore, all employers should review the Court’s decision and determine what, if any, policy and procedure changes are necessary. 

Executive Order 13496, requires federal contractors to post a notice regarding employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act, among other things. The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued final regulations (pdf) implementing the Executive Order.

Who is covered by the posting requirement?
Prime contracts under $100,000 and subcontracts under $10,000 are not covered by the notice requirements. In addition, government contracts resulting from solicitations issued before June 21, 2010 are exempt. However, it is possible that an exempt contract may nevertheless contain a provision requiring the posting – so careful review of all recent and future federal contracts and subcontracts for this requirement is advisable.

What is the posting requirement?
Covered contractors are required to post a notice "of such size and in such form, and containing such content as the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe…" In other words, contractors don’t have the discretion to alter the form of the DOL poster. The DOL poster is currently in two forms:  a one-page 11"x17" version or a two-page 11"x8.5" format.

When does the Executive Order take Effect?
Covered contractors are required to comply by June 21, 2010.

Where must the notice be posted?
The DOL regulations issued state that the notice must be posted:

  • "In conspicuous places in and in and about the contractor’s…offices so that the notice is prominent and readily seen by employees…[including, but not limited to]…areas in which the contractor posts notices to employees about the employees’ terms and conditions of employment";
  • "Where employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act engage in activities relating to the performance of the [federal] contract" (i.e. work that fulfills a contractual obligation or facilitates performance of the contract or jobs for which the cost or a portion of the cost is allowable as a cost of the contract);
  • A contractor that "customarily posts notices to employees electronically must also post the required notice electronically."

Compliance may require posting in multiple locations (at a minimum, with other postings and where employees performing contract work perform their jobs), electronically and in other languages if a "significant portion" of the contractor’s workforce is not proficient in English.

What happens to contractors that fail to comply?
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will enforce the Executive Order, and may conduct "evaluations" to determine whether a contractor is in compliance. In addition, employees and individuals may file complaints with the OFCCP or the Office of Labor-Management Standards. If a contractor is found to be in violation, the OFCCP will first seek voluntary compliance. If a contractor still fails to comply, then further action will be taken, including the issuing of a cease and desist order and other "appropriate remedies," which may include penalties and sanctions, including the suspension, cancellation or termination of the contract and even disbarment.

Federal contractors, subcontractors and potential contractors should carefully review Executive Order 13496 and ensure compliance with all of its provisions.

The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") recently released a revised Form 941, the Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and related instructions to guide eligible employers in claiming the payroll tax exemption offered under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment ("HIRE") Act (H.R. 2847). The HIRE Act offers a tax exemption from having to pay the employer’s 6.2% share of social security tax on the wages paid to a qualified employee from March 19, 2010, through December 31, 2010. In order to receive this tax benefit for qualified new hires, employers must claim the exemption on their quarterly federal tax returns, beginning with the second quarter of 2010. The exemption applies to wages paid to qualified employees from March 19, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

President Barack Obama signed the HIRE Act into law on March 18, 2010. As detailed in our blog post, HIRE Act Provides Employers with Tax Incentives for Hiring and Retaining Qualified Employees, the HIRE Act amended the Internal Revenue Code to provide tax incentives for employers to hire unemployed workers. Specifically, the HIRE Act created two new tax benefits for eligible employers: the aforementioned payroll tax exemption for certain new hires, and a tax credit for retaining the qualified new hires. The IRS previously released a sample affidavit form, which employers’ qualified hires must complete as part of the qualification process for the tax exemption. The newly-released Form 941 will allow qualifying employers to claim the HIRE Act tax exemption on their Quarterly Tax Returns. Employers must claim the retention tax credit on their 2011 tax returns.

For additional information on the tax benefits offered under the HIRE Act, and related qualifications, visit the IRS’s website to read their Frequently Asked Questions regarding the HIRE Act tax benefits, or contact one of the attorneys in McNees Wallace and Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Practice Group. 

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" or the "Act") is by far the most wide-reaching new law governing employee benefits since the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") was passed in 1974. During the legislative process that led to passage of the sweeping health care reform legislation, it was proposed that plans already in existence on the date of passage be "grandfathered," or exempted, from the Act’s requirements. The concept of "grandfathering" is included in the Act; however, grandfathered plans are only exempt from some of the Act’s requirements. This article briefly discusses the meaning and advantages of grandfathered status and the recent interim federal regulations governing the maintenance of grandfathered status.

What is a grandfathered plan under PPACA?
A grandfathered plan is a health plan that was in existence on the date PPACA was passed – March 23, 2010. Under recently issued interim federal regulations, a plan must have "continuously covered someone since March 23, 2010" in order to be grandfathered.

What are the benefits to an employer of having a grandfathered health plan?

  1. Grandfathered plans are exempt from some, but not all, of PPACA’s requirements. For example, grandfathered plans are exempt from:  the Act’s mandate for plans to offer certain free preventive health services;
  2. The extension of rules prohibiting discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees to insured plans;
  3. The establishment of an external review process for benefit claim appeals;
  4. The prohibition against pre-authorization requirements for OB/GYN and emergency services;
  5. New Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") reporting requirements regarding plan efforts to improve participant health, safety and wellness;
  6. New HHS reporting requirements regarding claim payment policies, enrollment/disenrollment, claim denials and cost sharing; and
  7. Certain cost-sharing restrictions. In addition, grandfathered plans have delayed compliance deadlines for several of the Act’s requirements (e.g., restrictions on annual benefit limits). 

Is it possible to lose grandfathered plan status?

Although a health plan can avoid having to comply with a number of PPACA requirements by maintaining grandfathered status, that status can be lost.  On June 11, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service, HHS and the Department of Labor jointly issued "interim final rules" outlining the ways in which a grandfathered plan can lose its status.  These regulations are extremely restrictive and are likely to trigger significant "pushback" from the employer community.  It is entirely possible that the interim rules will be overhauled before being issued in final form.  However, for present purposes, the interim rules are the only formal guidance available on this point.

Continue Reading The Advantages of Having “Grandfathered” Health Plan Status Under PPACA (And How to Lose That Status)

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" or the "Act") (pdf), commonly referred to as the "health care reform law," is nearly 900 pages long and imposes a multitude of new requirements on employers and their group health plans. Yet, despite its length, the Act leaves many basic questions regarding its requirements unanswered. For example, employers that seek to comply with the Act’s requirement regarding the provision of unpaid breaks for mothers to express breast milk for children up to one year of age do not yet know how many breaks must be provided per day or how long the breaks must be. Similarly, group health plans that are "grandfathered," and therefore exempt from certain of the Act’s requirements, do not yet know what types of plan amendments jeopardize grandfathered status. Important questions like these will likely be addressed over the course of the next several months, and years, in federal regulations. In May 2010, federal agencies issued the first wave of "interim" regulations under the Act.

Interim Final Rules Relating to Dependent Coverage of Children to Age 26 The Act requires all group health plans, regardless of grandfathered status, to extend dependent coverage to children until they reach age 26. This requirement goes into effect for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (i.e. January 1, 2011 for calendar year plans). Grandfathered plans may exclude an employee’s child who is over the age of 19 if he has other employer-provided coverage available – other than through one of the child’s parents. However, this limited exclusion does not apply to non-grandfathered plans and the exclusion will be eliminated altogether in 2014.

On May 10, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services jointly issued "interim final regulations (pdf)" governing the extension of dependent coverage. The regulations expressly prohibit group health plans from denying or restricting coverage to dependents under the age of 26 on the basis of residency, student status, employment status or financial dependency. The regulations also clarify that the extension of coverage does not apply to the grandchild of an employee.

Although plans may charge an employee more for coverage as the number of his or her covered dependents increase, the regulations prohibits plans from varying the terms of dependent coverage based on age (unless the dependent is 26 or older). In other words, a plan may not charge more to cover a 25-year old dependent than it does a 5-year old. Similarly, older dependents cannot be offered fewer plan options than younger dependents.

Under the regulations, dependents under the age of 26 who previously lost coverage or who were denied coverage due to their age must be given an opportunity to enroll in the plan. The enrollment opportunity must begin no later that the plan’s first plan year beginning on or after September 23, 2010 and must last at least thirty days. In addition, a written notice of this opportunity must be provided to the dependent or to the employee-parent. It may be included as part of other enrollment materials; however, the notice must be prominent.

Interim Final Rules Relating to PPACA’s Early Retirement Reinsurance Program The Act also created a temporary reinsurance program for employer health plans (insured and self-funded) that provide coverage for eligible early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64.

Continue Reading Federal Agencies Issue First Wave of Health Care Reform Regulations

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

It’s not often that all nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court agree on the disposition of an employment law matter, but that’s what happened in Lewis v. City of Chicago, issued on May 24, 2010 (No. 08-974) (pdf). 

The City of Chicago gave a written test in 1995 to 26,000 applicants for firefighter positions. In January 1996, the City notified the applicants of their test results, and depending on their scores, applicants were designated well-qualified (scoring 89 or above), qualified (scoring between 65 and 88), or not qualified (scoring below 65). They were further informed that only the well-qualified were likely to be hired but that the list of those who were merely qualified would be retained in case the well-qualified list was exhausted as positions were filled.

On March 31, 1997, Crawford Smith, a Black applicant who had scored in the qualified range and had not been hired, filed an EEOC Charge along with five other similarly situated applicants. They alleged that the City’s practice of hiring only applicants who scored over 89 had a disparate impact on Black applicants. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is unlawful, unless the employer can demonstrate that the challenged practice is job-related for the position in question. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(k)(1)(A). Smith argued that since he was deemed qualified there was no job-related reason to limit hiring to those who scored over 89.

The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice and the applicants filed suit in federal district court. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the applicants had waited too long to file with the EEOC. There is a 300 day limitations period under Title VII for filing with EEOC, and in this case the Charge was filed more than a year after the applicants had received their test results. But, the City hired applicants from the well-qualified pool during the 300 day period prior to the filing of the Charge, and continued to periodically hire from the pool as additional fire fighters were needed.

At the district court level, Crawford and the other applicants prevailed. The court denied the City’s summary judgment motion, finding that the City’s "ongoing reliance" on the 1995 test results constituted a continuing violation under Title VII. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, holding that "the hiring only of applicants classified ‘well-qualified’ was the automatic consequence of the test scores rather than the product of a fresh act of discrimination." The Court of Appeals found that the applicants should have filed their Charge with EEOC within 300 days of receiving the test results.

The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court. Even if a plaintiff does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice, the Court stated, the plaintiff may nevertheless assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s application of that practice. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Scalia was unmoved by arguments from the City and its amici (or "friends of the court") that employers could now face disparate impact suits for practices they have used regularly for years, noting "…it is not our task to assess the consequences of each approach and adopt the one that produces the least mischief. Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted."

It is fair to say that few observers would have predicted such a unanimous holding in this matter by the Court. Could the Court have been influenced by Congress’ enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, reversing the Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber (pdf)? In Ledbetter the Court had held a gender-based discrimination claim was not timely filed where the employee claimed her wage disparity with male co-workers resulted from personnel decisions made years earlier.

In any event, employers must now devote even greater attention to determining whether seemingly benign practices such as relying on higher test scores may disproportionately impact members of a protected class. Years can go by but each time the employer applies that practice employees will have a fresh 300 day period in which discrimination allegations can be raised. 

This post was contributed by Samuel N. Lillard, Of Counsel, and Anthony D. Dick, an Associate, members of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Practice Group in Columbus, Ohio.

According to recent estimates, upwards of 90 percent of employers monitor employee workplace activity in some way or another. The appeal is obvious. When done properly, monitoring can help companies increase productivity and efficiency, protect assets and proprietary information, and identify and hopefully prevent harassing conduct, libel, employee theft, vandalism, hacking, and other inappropriate behavior. But when companies overstep permissible boundaries, their monitoring efforts can have severe legal and financial consequences. There are a substantial number of cases, including several recent decisions, where companies have learned the hard way that their right to monitor employees’ work activities has limits.

For example, in Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 272 (2009) (pdf), the employer, in a legitimate effort to determine who may have been viewing pornography on a work computer late at night, placed surveillance cameras in certain employees’ offices without the employees’ knowledge. Instead of catching the offender, the employer captured images of employees changing their clothes for post-work workouts, female employees viewing their pregnancy scars, and other private activities. In ruling against the employer, the California Supreme Court held that although employees’ right to privacy in work offices is not absolute, they have “a reasonable expectation of privacy under widely held social norms that the employer would not install video equipment capable of monitoring and recording their activities – personal and work-related – behind closed doors without their knowledge or consent.”

In a recent New Jersey case, Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009) and Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2008 WL 6085437 (D.N.J. 2008), two restaurant servers created a password protected MySpace page where they and certain fellow co-workers could go to vent about the trials and tribulations of working in a restaurant. A supervisor learned of the MySpace page and pressured an employee with access to give him the password. Once on the site, the supervisor found messages that included sexual remarks about members of management and customers and references to violence and illegal drugs. The two servers who created the page were terminated and subsequently sued under stored communications laws that limit which individuals may access stored electronic communications. The trial court denied summary judgment to the employer holding that the restaurant’s employee monitoring authority did not include private online communications on a social network outside of work. The two employees subsequently won a small jury verdict.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide a public sector employee monitoring case in its current session. In City of Ontario v. Quon, 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted Dec. 14, 2009 (pdf), City of Ontario SWAT officers were given police-department-owned pagers that allowed them to send text messages. They were told in a meeting that the text messages would be treated like e-mails under the City’s employee monitoring policy and that the City would have the right to review such messages at any time to determine whether the pagers were being used for personal purposes. Despite the representations made in the meeting, officers received mixed messages from supervisors and other staff members as to whether the City would actually ever review the messages. Sgt. Jeff Quon, an officer who was issued a pager, used it on numerous occasions to send sexually explicit text messages to his wife and mistress. At some point, the City of Ontario requested Quon’s transcripts from the wireless provider without his permission and read the personal messages. Quon sued claiming the City violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. The lower court ruled in favor of the City. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments and a decision is expected in the coming months.

These cases should serve as a warning to employers. While there are no hard and fast rules to ensure that your business does not find itself involved in litigation concerning workplace surveillance and employee privacy issues, adhering to a few basic principals can help minimize the potential liability.
 

Continue Reading Big Brother, Big Implications: Creating an Employee Monitoring Policy Without Creating Additional Legal Liability