The effective date of Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act is fast approaching leaving many employers with questions about what they should be doing to comply with the new law. Here are some steps that employers may wish to consider in fostering good employee relations and avoiding the civil and criminal penalties associated with violations of the CIAA:

Get Familiar with the Requirements of the Law. An Employer Toolkit is available from the Department of Health setting out the basic requirements of the law. We have posted on the CIAA as follows:

Pennsylvania enacts Clean Indoor Air Act Prohibiting Smoking in most Public Places including Workplaces

Department of Health Issues Guidance for Employer Compliance with the Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act

 

Post Required Signage Designating Nonsmoking Areas. Employers must post signs prohibiting smoking in the workplace and designating outdoor smoking areas that are not too close to entrances or exits. Downloadable signs for both “No Smoking” and “Smoking Permitted” in English and Spanish are available from DOH.

 

Adopt a Policy on Workplace Smoking for Employees and Customers. Adopting a policy is not an express requirement of the law but makes good sense for effective employee communications and to establish the employer’s good faith defense to civil and criminal penalties under the law. The DOH (through its partner PACT) has a sample policy, which I do not recommend. At a minimum, a policy should designate the all indoor workplace areas as nonsmoking and, if elected, those outdoor areas where smoking is permitted. Other restrictions on smoking such as time and frequency of breaks should be addressed. The consequences of violating the policy should be set forth along with acknowledgment of the CIAA anti-retaliation provisions for employees who complain about violations.

 

Conduct Training for Supervisors and Employees. Employers should notify employees of the new law and its restrictions either in conjunction with introduction of the policy or otherwise. Avoid pitting the smokers against the nonsmokers. This is a state law, you don’t have a choice. Mention of the criminal fines and consequences of violation of the law is appropriate.

 

Consider a Smoking Cessation Program to help Smokers Adapt to the New Law. As mentioned previously, the CIAA may be a chance to offer a wellness program including a smoking cessation component.

Tobacco Free Workplace Policies may be integrated with Wellness Programs

 

Apply for Necessary Exemptions.  Drinking Establishments, Cigar Bars, and Tobacco Shops should apply for an exemption if they intend to allow smoking under the exemptions provided in the CIAA. 

Businesses face increasing uncertainty over the availability of financing because of the economic downturn and tightening of credit markets.   Financially troubled businesses may need to curtail operations through a plant closing or mass layoff if additional financing is not received. Employers need to manage compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) as their negotiations with financial markets unfold.

WARN provides for an exception to the sixty-day notice requirement when a “faltering company” is confronted with a possible plant closing; however, the exception is a narrow one that requires careful employer analysis. An employer claiming the exception must prove: (1) it is actively seeking capital at the time the 60-day notice would have been required; (2) it had a realistic opportunity to obtain the financing sought; (3) the financing would have been sufficient, if obtained, to enable the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown; and (4) the employer reasonably and in food faith believed that sending the 60-day notice would have precluded it form obtaining the financing.

A recent court decision in In Re: APA Transport Corp. Consolidated Litigation discussed several critical elements of the faltering company exception including the following:

Consolidation of related companies into a “Single Employer”

Related companies may be treated as a “single employer” for determining whether the employer meets the 100-employee coverage threshold for WARN and to assess whether the company is faltering. The faltering company exception is not available if a related has adequate capital to continue operations and it is treated as a single employer. Five factors are used to determine if related companies are liable under WARN on “single employer” grounds:

  • Common ownership
  • Common directors and/or officers
  • De facto exercise of control, i.e., one company was the decision maker for the employment practice that gave rise to the litigation
  • Unity of personnel policies emanating from a single source
  • Dependency of operations, i.e., interchange of employees or equipment or commingling of finances.

Timing and Proof of “Actively Seeking Additional Financing” 

 

According to the court, WARN requires that steps to “actively seek financing” be taken “at the time that the 60-day notice would have been required.” Therefore, the actions of the company occurring during the period of time, which is sixty days before the plant closing, must demonstrate active pursuit of financing. The court rejected APA’s argument that a company may qualify for the faltering company defense irrespective of whether it was actively seeking capital at the time the notice was required, so long as it did no foresee the shutdown that occurred sixty days later. Employers must demonstrate the timing and steps it took to secure financing.  The court’s view of the exception places a degree of omniscience on employers to predict exactly when the company will shut down.

 

Incidentally, the faltering company exception does not apply to mass layoffs under WARN.

Target Corp. has agreed to pay $6 million in damages to plaintiffs in California unable to use its online site as part of a class action settlement with the National Federation of the Blind. The issue centers on the Americans with Disabilities Act’s requirements that retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target had argued that the ADA covered only physical spaces. The California court held that the ADA covers an online retailer’s website. Websites can be made more accessible through screen-reading software that converts text into speech for visually impaired access. The court certified the case as a class action before it settled.

The case has important implications for retailers who may now face class action lawsuits. Employers that rely on a web-based application and recruiting processes should also examine their websites for compliance with the ADA’s employment provisions which require accessibility and accommodation in the hiring process.   A recent OFCCP Directive sets forth the agency’s policy on review of employer websites where applications are solicited:

Effective immediately, all compliance evaluations shall include a review of the contractor’s online application systems to ensure that the contractor is providing equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities and disabled veterans. The review should include whether the contractor is providing reasonable accommodation, when requested, unless such accommodation would cause an undue hardship. In this directive, the term "online system" shall include, but not be limited to, all electronic or web-based systems that the contractor uses in all of its personnel activities.

The EEOC released its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce for Fiscal Year 2007 (period October 2006 to September 2007).  For those employers who may be benchmarking against the federal government, it seems to me that the government performs at a level that the EEOC would never accept from other employers. Here is a sampling of report’s findings:

·         The federal government employs almost 2.6 million workers of which 56.8% are men and 43.2% are women.

·         The federal workforce’s demographic composition is 7.8% Hispanic or Latino; 65.8% White; 18.4% Black or African American; 6% Asian; 0.2% Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, 1.7% American Indian/Alaskan Native; and 0.2% reported 2 or more races.

·         Hispanic or Latinos, Whites, women and persons of Two or More Races remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2000 census (CLF).  Black or African Americans, Asians, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives and men remained above their overall availability in the CLF.

·         Federal employees and applicants filed 16,363 complaints alleging discrimination.

·         Unlawful discrimination was found in 2.8% of the 7,673 cases that were closed on the merits.

·         85% of federal agencies provided their EEO staff with required training.

·         58% of federal agencies have an Anti-Harassment Policy.

The good news is that the government is evaluating its EEO performance and publishing the results.

Employers are unhappily surprised to learn that OSHA citations can include multiple fines for what is seemingly the same violation, particularly when fines are tallied up for each employee exposed to a hazard.   OSHA recently clarified its regulations concerning its longstanding policy of issuing per employee fines for violations of PPE and training obligations:

Under OSHA’s longstanding egregious policy first implemented in 1990, OSHA may seek a separate penalty for each discrete violation in cases where an employer has flagrantly disregarded its legal responsibilities for the safety and health of workers. The proposal addresses several recent legal decisions suggesting that differences in wording among OSHA standards may affect OSHA’s ability to issue separate penalties for each discrete violation in certain circumstances.

The regulatory clarification became necessary after several administrative and court decisions declined to enforce the imposition of per-employee fines in PPE and training cases based upon the wording of OSHA regulations. The OSHA proposed regulations revise the wording to make clear the agency’s intent to impose per-employee fines for such violations. The revisions primarily affect PPE and training related to health hazards, such as asbestos and lead. Specific changes within the proposed rule include the following: (1) new paragraphs in the introductory provisions of OSHA’s standards that all PPE and training requirements impose a separate compliance duty to each covered employee, and that each employee not protected or trained may be considered a separate violation; and (2) revisions of the language of some existing respirator and training requirements. The proposed regulations also make clear that training programs must account for differences in individual employees such as language requirements.

 Many organizations take great pride in their employment practices striving to keep them free from employment discrimination. For such companies, a discrimination charge or lawsuit strikes at the very core of the organization’s values.  For example, AARP was recently sued for age discrimination by an employee who alleges she was passed over for promotions, laid off, and never recalled despite openings. The irony of such claims plays well in the media, but shouldn’t derail the organization’s efforts if properly managed.

Organizations need to develop an approach to address high profile public relations matters in advance. The approach should coordinate internal and external communications among company officials, PR firms and attorneys and could include the following:

·         Immediate press release or comment to the media. You may only get one chance to blunt the media impact of a discrimination claim so having something more to say than “no comment”. Lawyers fear public comments about pending litigation because of the lack of control and the potential that statement may be used to impeach the company official who made them. Comments need not address the merits of the claims, but can reaffirm the organizations commitment to its core values. However, comments to the media should be handled by authorized employees and there should be a clear employment policy prohibiting other managers from speaking to the media about official company positions.

·         Internal communications to employees. Employees are sometimes forgotten in the rush to deal with external communications. Information about lawsuits should not be left to the rumor mill. Employers may be limited in what they can say about the facts, particularly if the litigant is still employed. However, at the very least, internal communications should include the fact of the suit, a denial of wrongdoing, and a reaffirmation of EEO policies.

·         Use of non-public forums for dispute resolution. The EEOC, state discrimination agencies and the courts have alternated dispute resolution mechanisms including mediation. ADR can be an effective, less costly and more private forum of resolving discrimination claims.

Obviously, public disclosure of a discrimination claim can hurt a company’s image. Managing internal and external communications with advanced planning can mitigate the adverse impact.

The Department of Health (DOH) released additional Guidance and an application for an exemption for drinking establishments, cigar bars, and tobacco shops under Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA). The DOH information tangentially addresses the cross over between the prohibition on smoking in “workplaces” that may also be exempt “drinking establishments”.  For example, the law and guidance prohibit individuals less than 18 years of age in an exempt establishment at any time for any reason and require signage to that effect. Obviously, this creates a whole class of jobs that those under 18 may not perform supplementing existing child labor and liquor laws governing employment of minors.

The CIAA preempts local smoking ordinances except it does not apply to the City of Philadelphia, which has its own grandfathered Ordinance regulating smoking in public places.

Other postings on this subject include the following:

Pennsylvania enacts Clean Indoor Air Act Prohibiting Smoking in most Public Places including Workplaces

Department of Health Issued Guidance for Employer Compliance with Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act

In Makky v. Chertoff, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the importance of objective job qualifications in evaluating the merits of a discrimination claim. Employers that establish clear baseline standards for position through their job descriptions, advertisements and other records are better able to defend discrimination claims by showing that the applicant or employee does not meet minimum qualifications for the position.

The Makky case involved the termination of employment of Dr. Wagih Makky who was employed by the United States government in the Federal Aviation Administration and Transportation Safety Administration for fifteen years. In his various positions, Dr. Makky was required to obtain security clearance. A descendant of Egypt, Makky was the only Muslim and only person of Arab descent in his division. Makky’s security clearance was suspended due to safety concerns, including his dual citizenship with Egypt, foreign relatives and associates, foreign countries visited, and alleged misuse of his government computer. Makky was placed on paid administrative and subsequently terminated when the TSA issued its final denial of security clearance. Although Makky appealed the determination through the government’s processes, the determination was upheld.

Makky filed a lawsuit including a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Makky’s Title VII claim was premised on a mixed motive theory of discrimination which recognizes that an employment decision can at times be based on both (1) a legitimate non-discriminatory reason and (2) discriminatory animus. Here, Makky argued that while he was suspended without pay and terminated because he did not pass the security clearance, the TSA’s actions were also motivated by discriminatory animus based on his national origin because the agency did not offer him other positions or keep him on paid leave. Although the Court recognized that the analysis is factually sensitive , it held that when a plaintiff does not possess the objective baseline qualifications to do his or her job, the discrimination claim will fail on its face because he or she cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Applying the holding to the facts at hand, the Court found that Makky’s inability to retain a security clearance rendered him expressly unqualified for the TSA position. Analogizing Makky’s situation to a more mainstream occupation, the Court explained, “if the hospital employing a person who has been performing surgery learns that the employee falsified his or her qualifications and never went to medical school, that employee could not establish a prima facie mixed-motive case irrespective of allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination.”

So what can an H.R. specialist take away from Makky? When a position requires a baseline objective qualification, like a license or degree, make sure it is expressly stated in all hiring materials including: (1) job advertisements; (2) position descriptions; and (3) application materials. Notably, if the degree or license it is merely the company’s “preference” for someone in the position, it is important to consider whether making the “preference” appear as a “qualification” may lead to problems in the future. For example, suppose that Company X states that a sales position requires a Bachelor’s Degree. When Company X interviews its two top choices, however, the female candidate who possess a Bachelor’s Degree has the personality of dry toast, while the male candidate who has waitered all his life and does not have a Bachelor’s Degree has a dynamic sales personality and will surely do well with Company X. If Company X believes that the male applicant is better suited for the position than the female applicant, should the Bachelor’s Degree have been a required qualification in the first place? Probably not. Accordingly, it is important to have a process in place to review your company’s job advertisements and position descriptions before posting for openings. While certain baseline objective qualifications can often be beneficial in refuting a prima facie discrimination claim, turning a mere “preference” into a “qualification” can have the opposite result because it may be used as evidence of a discriminatory motive.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) has issued Guidance in preparation for the September 11, 2008 effective date of Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA). The Guidance has the following noteworthy provisions and references collateral documents:

  • Owner/Employer Compliance Toolkit:  Additional guidance will be available in a Toolkit which will be available on the DOH website beginning August 20, 2008.
  • Signage Requirements:  Signage for entrances and areas where smoking is not permitted is also available on the DOH website beginning August 20, 2008.
  • Outdoor Smoking Areas:  DOH recommends that outdoor smoking areas be a minimum distance of 20 feet from any doorway, if possible.
  • FAQ Published:  A frequently asked question section is added to the DOH website. The most interesting FAQ answer relates to the establishment of separate smoking facilities, which the DOH indicates, “The CIAA does not permit the construction of separate area with its own ventilation system and entrance for the sole purpose smoking.”
  • Exemption Approval Process:  Additional Guidance will be published for obtaining an exemption for tobacco shops, cigar bars, and drinking establishments.
  • Workplace Exemptions:  Additional Guidance will be published for obtaining an exemption for organizations, workplaces, facilities, residences, and events.

For additional information on the CIAA, see our prior post Pennsylvania enacts Clean Indoor Air Act Prohibiting Smoking in most Public Places including Workplaces.

UPDATE:  Pennsylvania Workplaces Must be Smoke-free by September 11, 2008

On June 17, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (the "HEART Act"). The HEART Act extends or modifies several tax and retirement benefits for active-duty and former military service members, and employers and plan administrators should be familiar with its provisions.

Retirement Plans

            Currently, for purposes of retirement plan vesting or accruals, an individual’s period of qualified military service is treated as a period of employment, which is credited when the soldier-employee returns to work. As such, if the individual dies during military service, his or her survivors do not receive accelerated vesting, ancillary life or other benefits they may have received if the employee died while actively performing his civilian employment. Under the HEART Act, retirement plans must pay the survivors of a soldier-employee who dies during qualified military service any benefits (other than those that accrued during military service) that the plan would have paid had the employee died during active employment. If a plan fails to follow this provision, it will be disqualified. Of note, this provision is effective for military service related deaths and disabilities occurring on or after January 1, 2007, so some plan sponsors may have to provide this benefit retroactively or risk disqualification.

            In addition to this mandatory provision, the HEART Act provides that retirement plans may elect to provide optional benefits to soldier-employees and their families. Notably, under one of the optional benefits, a plan may treat someone who dies or becomes disabled during qualified military service as if he or she resumed employment the day before the death or disability occurred and then terminated employment because of the death or disability. This optional benefit allows the plan to pay out benefits that would have accrued during the soldier-employee’s military service presuming he or she was reemployed. Plan sponsors that elect to make this benefit available must do so for all employees performing qualified military service on a reasonably equivalent basis.

Differential Wage Payments

            The voluntary payments made by some employers to service members during a qualified military leave to account for the difference between what the soldier-employee makes in the military and what his or her average compensation was while actively employed are commonly referred to as "differential wage payments." Under prior law, the Income Revenue Service (IRS) took the position that these payments were not subject to tax withholding and were not required to be treated as compensation for retirement plan purposes. Under the HEART Act, however, as of January 1, 2009, differential wage payments will be deemed wages subject to income tax withholding and must be treated as compensation of the employee for retirement plan purposes. In the HEART Act, "differential wages" is a term of art that includes: "compensation paid by an employer to an individual who is on active duty in the uniformed services for a period of more than 30 days, that represent all or a portion of the wages the individual would have received from the employer if the individual had remained in active employment with the employer." Any plan amendments relating to differential wages must be made on or before the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2010. 

Flexible Spending Arrangements

            The HEART Act permits health flexible spending arrangements ("FSA") to provide "qualified reservist distributions." A soldier-employee may be eligible for a "qualified reservist distribution" if he or she is called to active military duty for at least 180 days (or for an indefinite period), and the distributions are made during the period beginning with the active-duty call and ending on the last day of the FSA’s coverage period that includes the date of the active-duty call. Although this provision will help employees avoid the FSA use-it-or-lose-it rule, a number of important issues remain open for clarification. Specifically, the permissible amount of the distribution, timing of the distribution, and taxation of the distribution are not squarely addressed under the HEART Act. Accordingly, employers may amend their FSAs to include qualified reservist distributions as of June 17, 2008, it is advisable for employers to wait to offer these distributions until after the IRS clarifies some of the foregoing issues.