Nondiscrimination is a cornerstone of many CSR programs and a fundamental tenet of employment laws. However, for some, social responsibility and religion are inextricably intertwined creating a contradiction for CSR proponents. David W. Miller, Ph.D., Head of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture and professor of Business Ethics at Yale Divinity School and Yale School of Management, makes the following observation:

Many in the corporate world would rather not bring religion into the boardroom. Fair enough, especially if the purpose is to misuse religion for selfish or inappropriate purposes. But if advocates of CSR are interested in finding new allies in the quest to encourage businesses to become more ethical and attentive to their responsibilities to a wide range of stakeholders, they should think anew about the role of faith in the workplace.

CSR programs may benefit from the “faith-at-work” movement. Religion’s growing influence in business and government is reflected in faith-based and community initiatives like Bush’s Executive Order 13342 or Obama’s plans to “to build a ‘real’ partnership between faith-based organizations and the White House” if he becomes president.   Companies face challenges as the lines blur between CSR programs and religious practice at work.

For some “faith-friendly companies” , there isn’t a distinction between social responsiblity and religious practice.   For example, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, there are businesses that are not on the cutting edge of technology, that aren’t familiar with the latest HR buzz words like outsourcing, SOX, etc., and that will never access the internet to read this or any other blog. Yet companies adopting this “business model” are substantial contributors to the local economy, take “going green” to a completely new level, and make social responsibility a way of life. 

Amish businesses have no corporate policy on social responsibility, but these businesses make the same sorts of contributions to community and environment that Starbucks reports in its mission statement on corporate responsibility. The Amish community lives off-the-grid and takes care of one another. Typically using windmills to pump water and a horse and buggy for their daily commute, they have no need to purchase Renewable Energy Credits to meet environmental goals. They have no health insurance; do not participate in government programs like social security and welfare. If someone needs help, the community provides it. Businesses may close so employees may engage in social service like a barn raising for family in the community.

Extreme for modern businesses…yes. However, there may be take-aways for any business evaluating a CSR program:

  • Initiatives may need to be “systemic”
  • Keep them simple
  • Emphasize community
  • Reject Hochmut (pride, arrogance, haughtiness) and Value Demut (humility)

On May 21, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA"). GINA amends three employment-related laws including: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII); (2) the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA); and (3) the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While most of the provisions will become effective in 2009, it is important for employers to be familiar with GINA’s basic concepts and provisions to better prepare for the Act’s implementation.

Why GINA?

At the time of GINA’s passage, thirty-five states had laws relating to discrimination in employment based on genetic information. Pennsylvania does not. As the state laws vary, one of Congress’s goals in enacting GINA is to provide for an umbrella federal provision applicable to all persons in the U.S. GINA does not preempt state laws that provide more protection for genetic information. Notably, this law is responsive to many efforts in the medical community to personalize medical care, such that diagnosis and treatment plans would be tailor made for each patient based on his or her genetic make up.

What Is "Genetic Information" Under GINA?

Under GINA, “genetic information” is broadly defined to include information about: (1) an individual’s genetic tests, (2) the genetic tests of the individual’s family members, and (3) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in a family member. “Family member” is defined to include an individual’s spouse or dependent child by birth or adoption, and certain other relatives of such individual, individual’s spouse or dependent child. “Genetic information” does not include information about the sex or age of any individual.

How Does GINA Amend Title VII?

The GINA amendments to Title VII are effective November 21, 2009. Specifically, GINA:

1.            Makes it an unfair employment practice for employers, employment agencies and others to discriminate against individuals based on “genetic information” in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment; and

2.            Makes it unlawful to limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive the employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee because of genetic information.

            Notably, GINA provides that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has one year to issue implementing regulations and that an individual’s rights and remedies under GINA are analogous to those provided under Title VII; except no disparate impact claims are available under GINA.

Moreover, GINA generally prohibits employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information except under specific circumstances, such as for genetic services offered by the employer and for purposes of complying with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Like the Americans with Disabilities Act, GINA provides that to the extent an employer has genetic information, the employer must keep the information confidential. GINA is dissimilar from the ADA, however, because GINA prohibits discrimination based on the possibility of contracting a disease per family history or testing, whereas the ADA prohibits discrimination based on current/past/perceived disability.

How Does GINA Amend ERISA?

GINA’s amendments to ERISA are effective May 21, 2009. Under GINA, an ERISA-covered group health plan cannot:

  • Request, require or purchase genetic information for underwriting purposes or in advance of an individual’s enrollment;
  • Adjust premiums or contribution amounts of the group based on genetic information; or
  • Request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except in limited situations specifically allowed buy GINA.

Under GINA’s amendments to ERISA, a group health plan’s noncompliance may present significant liability for both the plan and its sponsor. Participants or beneficiaries will be able to sue noncompliant group health plans for damages and equitable relief. If the participant or beneficiary can show an alleged violation would result in irreparable harm to the individual’s health, the participant or beneficiary may not have to exhaust the typical administrative remedies before suing in court.

            How Does GINA Amend HIPAA?

            HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, covers genetic information with additional safeguards.  HIPAA protects the privacy of an individual’s medical information. GINA amends HIPAA to specifically state that genetic information should be considered medical information and receive the same privacy protections.  In addition, HIPAA now specifies that genetic information without a current diagnosis of illness is not a pre-existing condition. The HIPAA amendments will be published in the Federal Register no later than 60 days after GINA’s enactment and will be effective upon publication.

How Does GINA Amend The FLSA?

In addition to creating an entirely new protected trait, GINA also contained amendments to the child labor provisions of the FLSA. The amendments to the FLSA are effective as of May 21, 2008. Specifically, the amendments (1) increase the penalty for child labor violations by $1,000 per violation and (2) raise potential employer liability to $50,000 where a violation causes the death or serious injury of a minor.  This amount can be doubled for repeat or willful violations.

How To Prepare For GINA?

Although not currently effective, it is recommended that employers take a proactive position on preparing their enterprises for GINA. Some things to consider include:

·        Revising EEO and Anti-Harassment Policies to include "genetic information."

·        Monitoring your group healthcare plan to assure that it will be in compliance, afterall GINA provides for plan sponsor liability.

·        Creating a policy to flag genetic information provided for FMLA leave v. genetic information provided for other forms of leave. As of now, it appears that only FMLA leave situations fit within the leave exception to GINA.

·        Create a policy wherein genetic information is stored in the same manner as all medical documents submitted for ADA purposes (i.e. confidentially).

·        Stay Tuned to What the Agencies Issue During The Next Year!

Most state workers in Utah are shifting to 4-day week with announcement of the ‘Working 4 Utah’ initiative, extending state government service hours from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Thursday beginning the first week of August. State administrative offices will be closed on Fridays but essential public services will remain open that already run on extended hours and during the weekends. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman stated that

As we go forward with this initiative, we will conserve energy, save money, improve our air quality, and enhance customer service…. We live in a dynamic, ever-changing environment, and it’s crucial that we take a serious look at how we can adapt and maintain our state’s unparalleled quality of life.

Working 4 Utah cost saving analysis examined the impact of moving from five 8-hour days to four 10-hour days in terms of Reduction in Energy use for Government Buildings; Fuel Savings from less Commuting; Employee Financial Savings; and Emission Reductions.

Workforce Management notes that the Gas Price Could Revolutionize U.S. Workplace.  We have posted on Energy Expenses And Gas Prices Motivate Employers To Move To Four Day Workweek: What Are The Legal Issues? and FLSA causes Global Warming:  Sixteen other Reasons to Consider a 4-day Work Week.   Several Pennsylvania Counties and municipalities are mulling four day workweeks, including Berks County, Centre County, York County, and BEA School District.  But, Warren County has reportedly rejected the idea.  Give us your thoughts on the subject:

 

“Small Employer” minimum wage increases to $7.15 per hour effective July 1, 2008 

All employers in Pennsylvania must pay the state’s minimum wage of $7.15 per hour based on the expiration of the Small Employer exemption. Previously, an employer who had an employee complement composed of the equivalent of 10 or less full-time employees had a lower minimum wage rate of $6.65 per hour until July 1, 2008.

Pennsylvania’s Training Wage Increases to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008

Pennsylvania’s training wages is scheduled to increase from $5.85 to $6.55 effective July 24, 2008. The training wage is no longer allowed after July 23, 2009. A 60-day training wage may be paid to employees under 20 years old effective January 1, 2007. This wage matches the current federal minimum wage. Eligible employees may be paid the training wage up to the day before the employee’s 20th birthday. On and after the employee’s 20th birthday, pay must be raised to the regular Pennsylvania minimum wage even if the 60-day period has not expired.

The 60-day period starts on the first day of work. The 60-day period is counted as consecutive days on the calendar, not as days worked or business days. A break in employment (e.g. vacation, school year, etc.) does not affect the calculation of the 60-day period of eligibility and does not allow the employer to “restart” the 60-day period.

A youth under 20 may be paid the training wage for up to 60 consecutive calendar days after initial employment with any employer, not just the first employer. The fact that an eligible youth may be employed at the same time by more than one employer (unrelated to each other) does not affect either employer’s right to pay the training wage.   An employee may be “initially employed” only once by any one employer even if there are breaks in employment.

Employers must notify these employees at the time of hire of this wage and their right to receive the regular Pennsylvania minimum wage after 60 calendar days. Current employees may not be displaced, have their hours reduced or have their wages or employment benefits reduced to allow hiring of persons eligible for the training wage. Employers do not have to meet any training requirements to pay an eligible youth this training wage.

Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum Wage Poster

FAQ on Pennsylvania Minimum Wage

On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision confirming that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear firearms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years and struck down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns and trigger-lock requirements for other firearms.

This decision already has generated significant national attention and debate. Although the Court formally recognized the individual right to bear arms in Heller, the majority’s decision does not define the scope of that right. Thus, the full meaning and ramifications of this decision will be unclear for many years to come. 

That said, we can state what the Heller decision does not mean. From an employment law perspective, the Heller decision should have no effect on an employer’s ability to promulgate weapons or workplace violence policies that ban handguns or other types of weapons from its facilities. Constitutional protections are not applicable to private sector employers, absent some form of state action. For the same reason that an employee may not rely on the free speech protections of the First Amendment as a defense to discipline issued by a private sector employer, an employee cannot rely on Heller and the Second Amendment as a defense to a violation of an employer’s weapons or workplace violence policy. As for public sector employers, Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, expressly noted that the right recognized in Heller "is not unlimited" and that the decision should not "cast doubt" on restrictions barring firearms near schools or in government buildings. If the government may lawfully prohibit the carrying of handguns in government buildings, public sector employers also may have reasonable employment policies regarding handguns and other weapons. 

Thus, employers can enjoy the national debate and discussion following the Heller decision while knowing that it should not impact their employment policies.  The "RIght to bear Guns at Work" was the subject of a post on CNN’s Small Business noting that some state laws provide for a right of employees to bear arms in workplace settings.  Pennsylvania has no law that creates a right for employees to bring firearms to work.

Sometimes a wait and see approach is the right call when it comes to proposed legislation, but not for nonunion employers facing the possible passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). EFCA will radically change the way unions organize employers by eliminating the “campaign” phase and secret ballot election that have been the hallmark of industrial relations since the inception of the NLRA in 1935.

Under EFCA, a union can organize an employer based simply on a majority card showing. The following actions will place an employer in much better position should EFCA become law:

  • Educate your managers and supervisors now, not only on the card-signing process itself, but more broadly as to why unionization may be anachronistic in the 21st Century workplace.
  • Audit your current HR practices and make improvements before the union is on the scene (as it may be an unfair labor practice to do so after the union begins contacting your employees).
  • Make sure your employees have a recognized channel for bringing their concerns to management, a way they can "let off steam." (If not, your claim later that they don’t need a union to represent them may fall on deaf ears.)
  • Make sure your supervisors are consistently administering disciplinary policies in a non-discriminatory equitable fashion.
  • Train your managers and supervisors on what they can and cannot say during an organizing campaign, and maybe more importantly, what they should be saying if the union shows up.
  • Review your policies on solicitation, distribution of literature, bulletin board postings, and employee use of e-mail, while necessary changes can still be made. Again, if you wait until the union is on the scene to tweak, you will be committing an unfair labor practice.
  • Review your wage and benefit structures. If you’re not competitive in your industry or geographical area, the union will seek to exploit this in suggesting to your employees they need union representation.

Most experts believe EFCA is likely to be enacted in 2009.  Presidential candidate John McCain opposes EFCA and submitted a statement to the Congressional Record on June 26, 2007 in which he stated as follows:

I am strongly opposed to H.R. 800, the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.” Not only is the bill’s title deceptive, the enactment of such an ill-conceived legislative measure would be a gross deception to the hard working Americans who would fall victim to it.

Barak Obama has repeatedly advocated its passage and has the following position statement on his website:

The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to exercise their right to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to form a union through majority sign up and card checks, and strengthen penalties for those employers who are in violation. The choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone. It should be their free choice.

Organized labor will be pushing hard for EFCA, and if there is a Democratic Administration and Congress, passage of EFCA would be a virtual certainty. As noted by Kris Dunn this is The Hidden Career Killer for HR Pros unless you act now.

HR professionals are reminded of their workplaces’ vulnerabilities every time an episode of workplace violence is reported in the media like this morning’s headline “6 dead in plastics factory shooting rampage.”  The scope of the problem set out in statistics. There were 5734 workplace fatalities reported to OSHA (2005 is the last year statistics are available). Assaults and Violent Acts accounted for 792 workplace fatalities.

Media accounts typically report about the “warning signs” that were missed and speculate on how the incident may have been prevented. There are, of course, psychological tests and assessment tools that are predictive of violent behavior, but there are significant legal restrictions on their use. Assessments that are not "medical tests" may be used on a pre-employment basis, but should not be used as the principal reason for a hiring or promotion decision.

There is no profile of a potential workplace violence perpetrator; however, there are traits when coupled with at risk situations that increase the likelihood of violent behavior. Sheryl and Mark Grimm of the Workplace Violence Headquarters have developed a Formula for Workplace Violence that includes a list of traits as follows:

  • Previous history of violence, toward the vulnerable, e.g., women, children, animals
  • Loner, withdrawn; feels nobody listens to him; views change with fear
  • Emotional problems, e.g., substance abuse, depression, low self-esteem
  • Career Frustration, either significant tenure on the same job of migratory job history
  • Antagonistic relationships with others
  • Some type of obsession, e.g., weapons, other acts of violence, romantic/sexual, zealot (political, religious, racial), the job itself, neatness and order.

There is a major legal distinction made between an employer’s treatment of an applicant with a potentially violent personality and addressing employee conduct that expresses violent behavior. The EEOC has stated that its position on the distinction between perception and conduction in its  Enforcement Guidance for Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities :

34. When can an employer refuse to hire someone based on his/her history of violence or threats of violence?

An employer may refuse to hire someone based on his/her history of violence or threats of violence if it can show that the individual poses a direct threat. A determination of "direct threat" must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the functions of the job, considering the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence. To find that an individual with a psychiatric disability poses a direct threat, the employer must identify the specific behavior on the part of the individual that would pose the direct threat. This includes an assessment of the likelihood and imminence of future violence.

30. May an employer discipline an individual with a disability for violating a workplace conduct standard if the misconduct resulted from a disability?

Yes, provided that the workplace conduct standard is job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity. For example, nothing in the ADA prevents an employer from maintaining a workplace free of violence or threats of violence, or from disciplining an employee who steals or destroys property. Thus, an employer may discipline an employee with a disability for engaging in such misconduct if it would impose the same discipline on an employee without a disability. Other conduct standards, however, may not be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. If they are not, imposing discipline under them could violate the ADA.

OSHA’s General Duty Clause requires employers to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” OSHA provides some resources to help employers meet this requirement.

Given the legal limitations confronting employers in their efforts to provide a safe workplace, the following are some suggestions in development of a Violence Program:

  • Establish and communicate a written violence policy
  • Consider pre-employment assessments and background checks
  • Establish an Employee Assistance Program
  • Train supervisors to recognize warning signs of employee violence
  • Recognize "at risk" situations like employee discipline or discharge and plan accordingly
  • Consider professional evaluations of at-risk employees based on objective signs of workplace problems
  • Assess workplace security measures
  • Develop and Communicate a Disaster Management Plan

The OFCCP reports a record $51.7 million recovered for 22,251 workers. Of the recovery, 98% was collected for cases of systemic discrimination in the application process because of unlawful employment policy or practice according to a published account. Much of the monetary recovery came from the 14 cases of systemic discrimination referred to litigation with the DOL’s lawyers.

Government contractors are selected for audit in several ways including the use of a mathematical model that predicts the likelihood of a finding of systemic discrimination. The model analyzes data from five years of OFCCP compliance evaluations to formally identify and characterize relationships between reported EEO-1 workforce profiles and findings of discrimination. The OFCCP publishes compliance lists for one year audit cycles beginning in October of each year.

We have been involved in many of these style OFCCP audits and the approach is the same. The audit is triggered by an anomaly in a business’ EO Survey which shows a statistical disparity in either hires or terminations. For example, the percentage of minority applicants differs by more than 80% from the percentage of minorities hired (the four-fifths rule). The investigation into the disparity in the hiring process follows the road map set out in the OFCCP’s Compliance Manual as follows:

  • Summarizing the hiring process by obtaining an employer’s summary
  • Establishing the minimum objective criteria for the position.
  • Evaluating the Pass/Fail Points for disparate impact (i.e., when does an applicant move to the next step of the process).
  • Evaluating both the objective and subjective criteria for uniform application to all applicants and for business relatedness.
  • Evaluating specific safeguards as to the application of selection criteria including how well each is documented for each applicant.
  • Measuring statistical disparity by Impact Ratio Analysis (IRA) of each step and criteria.

There are many problems with the OFCCP’s investigatory process, a few of which are described as follows:

1.    The OFCCP loathes subjective hiring criteria. I had a client who required that its customer service candidates be "personable and friendly". The OFCCP started out with the position that this was not a "job-related" criteria. When that didn’t fly with its own legal department, the OFCCP interviewed every hiring manager and asked them to define how it applied the "personable and friendly criteria". When the hiring manager responses weren’t exactly the same, the OFCCP found adverse impact because the hiring procedures weren’t uniformly applied to all applicants.

2.    The OFCCP’s standard for adequate record keeping of each hiring decision is extremely high and it finds that inadequate records are a form of systemic discrimination.

3.    Finding adverse impact based on the four-fifths rule is a joke in terms of its lack of statistical significance. The rule has its origin in the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. However, knowing that the OFCCP uses this flawed measure makes it all the more important to use this measuring stick when self-assessing your employment practices.

Once the OFCCP makes a finding of a prima facie case of pattern and practice discrimination, it will presume that all members of the class are victims of discrimination and assess liability against the contractor.   The employer can only argue about who is eligible for an award and how much. This is where an employer must decide to dig in its heals and litigate or settle.

A settlement with the OFCCP for systemic discrimination in the hiring process will include back pay plus interest and job offers to the affected class, internal mandated and OFCCP approved training, follow up reporting to the OFCCP and publicity in the form of an OFCCP Press Release.

On June 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court is its decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory holding that an employer defending a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) bears the burden of persuading the factfinder that its use of "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) was reasonable.

As part of a reduction in force, Knolls developed a review system to determine which managers to lay off. Under Knoll’s system, managers were scored on their "performance," "flexibility," and "critical skills." Managers were also given points based on years of service. Based on its review system, Knoll’s terminated 31 managers, 30 of whom were over the age of 40. 

Twenty-eight of the terminated managers filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under the ADEA. At trial, the plaintiffs relied on a statistical expert’s testimony that the result of Knoll’s review system was so skewed that it could not have occurred by chance. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the disparate impact claim, but not on the disparate treatment claim. Knolls appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Jackson, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Knolls and vacated the judgment. Meacham appealed the case to the Supreme Court citing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Criswell v. Western Airlines, Inc., which placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s RFOA was unreasonable. The Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue, and vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit.   

In its decision, the Supreme Court focused on the fact that the language of the RFOA exemption appears alongside the exemption for bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). These exemptions provide an affirmative defense "where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(f). Based on how Congress drafted the RFOA and BFOQ exemptions, the Court concluded that the legislature intended the two exemptions to be treated the same. As the BFOQ exemption has always been treated as an affirmative defense, the Court concluded that the RFOA exemption should also be treated as an affirmative defense. As such, the Court ruled that the employer has the burden of persuading the factfinder that its RFOA was reasonable.    

While the Court did reiterate that a plaintiff cannot establish an ADEA disparate impact claim merely by pointing to a generalized policy that has caused a disparate impact, the Court did admit that this decision "makes it harder and costlier to defend than if employers merely bore the burden of production; nor [did the Court] doubt that this [decision] will sometimes affect the way employers do business with their employees."

On June 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued four employment-related decisions that are briefly summarized as follows:

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory:  The government ordered its contractor to reduce its workforce. The contractor had its managers select employees for layoff based on factors including performance, flexibility, critical skills and seniority. The resulting reduction in force netted 31 employees, 30 of which were over 40. Several laid off employees sued claiming the neutral factors used for layoff had a disparate impact on older workers.

The Court noted that the employees in a disparate impact case must isolate and identify specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for the statistical disparity disfavoring older workers. The employer must prove that the neutral factors constitute “reasonable factors other than age”. Reasonableness differs from business necessity.

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown:  The Court struck down a California law that prohibited employers who receive state funding from using those funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” The Court held that the NLRA preempts state laws that attempt to regulate areas that the NLRA protects or prohibits.

Kentucky Retirement System v. EEOC:  Kentucky’s pension program imputed additional years of service for workers in “hazardous positions” who became disabled so as to credit them with service to reach “normal retirement” under the plan. An employee who worked past normal retirement age and then became disabled challenged the plan on the basis of age discrimination. He argued that the disability pension calculation disadvantaged older workers based on their aged.

The Court noted the distinction between “age” and “pension status”. When an employer adopts a pension plan that includes age as a factor, and that employer treats employees differently based on pension status, a plaintiff must prove that the differential treatment was “actually motivated” by age and not pension status to prevail under the ADEA.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Green:   A life insurance company was the administrator of an employer’s long-term disability plan so it decided an employee’s eligibility for benefits and paid the claim out of its pocket. The insurer determined that an employee was not eligible for benefits and the employee appealed.

The Court analyzed the standard of review of a plan administrator’s denial of benefits under ERISA when the administrator is both the decision maker and the payer of benefits. In such a situation, the administrator has a conflict of interest, which a court may consider as a factor in accessing whether the decision is an abuse of its discretion under the plan. The administrator’s decision is entitled to “deference” and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrator; however, it may consider the conflict as part of its assessment.

Hat tip to Connecticut for being faster by a nose.