Employment Archives - Page 60 of 104 - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG

HHS Provides Additional Guidance on Health Plan Coverage of Contraceptive Services by Nonprofit Religious Employers

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 30, 2012 | Employment, Health and Welfare Plans

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires non-grandfathered group health plans to provide coverage for certain preventive services on a first dollar basis (i.e. without deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance or other cost-sharing). Interim final regulations provide an exemption for a very narrow subset of religious employers with respect to coverage of contraceptive services. To qualify for the exemption the entity must be a nonprofit religious employer that offers insurance to its employees. Many entities affiliated with religious institutions, such as hospitals and universities, do not meet this narrow exception.

Now, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided additional guidance for nonprofit employers that do not cover contraceptive services under their current plans because of religious beliefs and that do not fit within the previous exemption. These employers will have an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year will have to certify that they are eligible for this delayed implementation. The announcement also indicates that employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services will be required to provide notice to employees stating that such services are available with income-based support at sites such as community health centers, public clinics and hospitals.

IRS Issues Revised Guidance on W-2 Reporting Requirements for Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Coverage

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 30, 2012 | Employment, Health and Welfare Plans

by Amy Gordon, Susan Nash and Ashley McCarthy

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued revised guidance, Notice 2011-28, regarding the requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that employers report to employees the cost of their employer-sponsored group health plan coverage on Forms W-2. This requirement applies to calendar year 2012 W-2s, which employees will receive from their employer in 2013.

The guidance provided assistance on calculating aggregate reportable cost. Aggregate cost may be calculated in accordance with one of several methods including the “COBRA applicable premium” method, the “premium charged” method (for fully-insured coverage), or a “modified COBRA premium” method.

In addition to medical coverage, employers must include in the cost of employer-sponsored group health plan coverage, coverage under an Employee Assistance Program, wellness program coverage, on-site medical clinic coverage (but only aggregate reportable cost to the extent that the coverage is provided under a group health plan and the employer charges a premium for such coverage to beneficiaries of federal continuation coverage [e.g., COBRA]), Health Flexible Spending Account coverage (FSA), but only where the employer itself contributes to the FSA or otherwise provides flex credits through a Internal Revenue Code Section 125 cafeteria plan, and coverage under a dental plan or vision plan if such plans are not excepted from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Employers do not need to include in the cost of employer-sponsored group coverage the cost of coverage under a dental plan or vision plan if such plans are excepted from HIPAA, amounts contributed to an Archer medical savings account (MSA) or a Health Savings Account, amounts of any salary reduction election to an FSA, the cost of coverage under a multiemployer plan, cost of coverage under a Health Reimbursement Arrangement not included in aggregate reportable income, and the cost of coverage provided under a self-insured group health plan that is not subject to federal continuation coverage requirements (i.e., a church plan).

Acting General Counsel of the NLRB Issues Second Report on Social Media

by Jackie Sinn | Jan 27, 2012 | Employment, Labor, Privacy and Data Security

by Heather Egan Sussman, Linda Doyle and Sabrina Dunlap

On Wednesday, January 25, 2012, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon released a second report describing social media cases reviewed by his office. The report (Operations Management Memo) addresses 14 cases related to social media and employer social media policies.

Many of the cases reviewed involved employees who had been discharged after they posted comments on Facebook. The general counsel found that a number of the terminations were improper because employees had engaged in protected activity and their terminations arose from unlawful employer policies. However, the general counsel upheld several terminations – despite overly broad employer policies – where the employees involved were not engaged in protected activity and had merely posted general complaints or individual gripes unrelated to working conditions or wages.

The report emphasizes two key points made in an earlier report in August 2011: 1) Employer policies should not be so broad that they prohibit activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions; and 2) an employee’s comments on social media sites will generally not be protected if they are simply complaints unrelated to working conditions or wages that impact a group of employees.

There are three cases involving social media questions currently pending before the NLRB and those decisions will likely give further guidance on acceptable employer social media policies.

In addition, McDermott partner Heather Egan Sussman will be speaking with Lafe Solomon, and Edward Loughlin (EEOC) on this topic at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Global Privacy Summit, Wednesday, March 7, 2012.

Workplace Violence

by McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 19, 2011 | Employment, Labor

by Heather Egan Sussman, Arthur G. Sapper and Bethany K. Hatef

During the holiday season, stress can run high. Holidays can bring less sleep, increased pressures and even family tension. This can affect the workplace and increase the risk of confrontation or even violence. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently issued its first guidance directive regarding how OSHA will enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act against workplace violence hazards.

Over the past 15 years, OSHA notes, workplace violence has remained among the top four causes of occupational death. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workplace homicide was responsible for more than 3,000 occupational deaths between 2006-2010.

The directive defines “workplace violence” as “violent acts (including physical assaults and threats of assaults) directed toward persons at work or on duty.” OSHA states that it will inspect workplaces based on whether there are known risk factors for workplace violence. OSHA will focus on industries with high rates of workplace violence, particularly the healthcare and social services industries and late-night retail establishments.

Although OSHA has no regulations on workplace violence, OSHA may cite employers for workplace violence hazards under the general duty clause [Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act], and will require employers to consider workplace violence when complying with OSHA regulations governing the availability of medical services and first aid, and in writing emergency action plans.

As a result, employers, particularly those in high-risk industries, should ensure that they have a strong written workplace violence prevention program that includes training on violence prevention, and periodic auditing of measures designed to detect and prevent workplace violence.

To mitigate the risk of violence in your workplace, consider these tips:

Find ways to help employees manage stress during the holiday season.
Remind employees of Employee Assistance Program (EAP) benefits.
Have procedures in place to quickly respond to and defuse incidents.
Ensure employees feel comfortable reporting workplace violence incidents.

Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies and Broadens Noncompete Enforceability

by McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 15, 2011 | Employment

by Linda M. Doyle, Monica Quinn Halloran and Nathaniel L. Whalen

A recent Illinois Supreme Court opinion clarifies and broadens the scope of enforceable noncompete agreements for Illinois employers. For a summary of the court’s opinion and the resulting changes regarding the enforceability of noncompete agreements, click here.

Transit Pass and Vanpool Benefits to Shrink to $125 Per Month in 2012

by McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 7, 2011 | Employment

by Ira B. Mirsky and Ralph DeJong

Millions of people across the United States will experience a significant increase in the cost of their daily commute to work, and many employers will suffer a corresponding increase in payroll taxes for 2012 and beyond, unless U.S. Congress acts before the end of 2011. The reduction will also restore a significant gap between the exclusion limit for employer-provided transit pass or vanpool benefits and qualified parking benefits, and creates an unintended economic subsidy that may influence some commuters’ choice to drive themselves to work over using mass transit.

To read the full article, click here.

Employee Benefits & Compensation: What You Should Do Before Year End

by McDermott Will & Emery | Nov 7, 2011 | Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Employment, Executive Compensation, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor, Retirement Plans

Friday, November 18, 2011
10:00 – 11:00 am CST

As the year draws to a close, please join us for a focused and concise update on the most important employee benefit issues.

Mark your calendars
McDermott Will & Emery will present a 60-minute complimentary webcast, hosted by the leaders of our employee benefits and compensation practice, that will highlight key year-end considerations for:

Health and welfare benefits
Qualified and non-qualified retirement plan
Plan fiduciary and investment management
Executive compensation
Fringe benefits
Domestic partner benefits

Who should attend
All vice presidents of human resources, in-house counsel, compensation and benefits directors, chief financial officers and others responsible for overseeing corporate or executive benefits and/or retirement plans.

To register, please click here.

For more information, please contact McDermott Events.

Massachusetts Wage Act: New Warning to Employers Everywhere

by Jackie Sinn | Oct 31, 2011 | Employment

by Andrew Liazos, Heather Egan Sussman and Sabrina Dunlap

Massachusetts Wage Act May Extend to Employees Living and Working Elsewhere — Out-of-State Employees May Sue Officers Personally for Mandatory Triple Damages, Attorneys Fees and Costs

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge recently extended the reach of the Massachusetts Wage Act – including its provisions for officer liability, mandatory triple damages, attorneys fees and costs – to an employee who lives and works in Florida. The judge found that the employee had “sufficient contacts” with Massachusetts during his employment, and was thus entitled to protection of its Wage Act.

In Dow v. Casale, a former sales employee of a small, failed Massachusetts company sued three former executives personally in Massachusetts, alleging they owed him more than $100,000 in commissions he earned prior to the company’s failure. The executives argued that Massachusetts law did not apply because the employee lived and worked in Florida. The court disagreed and held that the Wage Act “was designed to regulate the actions of Massachusetts employers, regardless of where their employees work.”

The judge found the following activities established “more than sufficient contacts” with the Commonwealth to afford the employee the protection of the its Wage Act:

The salesman conducted his business largely via the internet, which was paid for by the Massachusetts employer
His business cards listed the company’s Massachusetts address, phone number and fax number
He had customers in Massachusetts and visited them about 20 times over two years
He was in daily contact with his supervisor in Massachusetts
All sales paperwork was generated in Massachusetts
All customer purchase orders were sent to Massachusetts, invoices were then sent to customers from Massachusetts and customers sent their payments to Massachusetts

In light of this decision, out of state employers may want to consider taking steps to avoid the type of “sufficient contacts” with Massachusetts that might expose them and their officers to unfavorable liabilities and penalties under the Massachusetts Wage Act.

ALJ Finds Employee’s Facebook Comments Unrelated to Working Conditions are not Protected Under the NLRA

by McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 17, 2011 | Employment, Labor

by Stephen D. Erf, Heather Egan Sussman and Sabrina E. Dunlap

Two weeks ago, we wrote about a decision from an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (available here) finding that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protected an employee’s Facebook comments made about his employer. Last week, an ALJ issued another decision involving social media and the NLRA, finding that an employee had engaged in some protected activity, but that he was ultimately fired for other, unprotected activity. In Karl Knauz Motors, a former salesperson claimed that he was fired after he posted pictures and comments on Facebook criticizing his employer’s choice of serving hot dogs at a sales event introducing the new BMW 5-series. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a report related to social media (found here), in which it noted the employee’s posts in the BMW case were protected activity because they related to the terms and conditions of employment.

While the ALJ agreed that the employee had engaged in protected activity in discussing the sales event, the Judge held that the employer actually terminated the employee for his other Facebook posts, which mocked a co-worker for allowing a teenager to test drive a Land Rover, who ultimately drove the car into a nearby pond. The Judge found that the NLRA did not protect such a posting because it had no connection to the terms and conditions of employment, and was posted solely by the employee, not as part of a discussion with other employees. Therefore the employer did not violate the NLRA when it fired the employee.

In addition to the Facebook postings, the Judge also considered whether four provisions of the employer’s handbook violated Section 7 of the NLRA. The Judge dismissed the complaint regarding a provision that encouraged employees to have a good attitude at work, because it could be read to protect the relationship between the dealer and its customers, rather than to restrict employees’ Section 7 rights. However, the Judge held that the three remaining provisions, which each limited employees’ right to speak about employment, violated the NLRA because they all could be read as curtailing employees’ Section 7 rights, and if employees complied with these restrictions, they would not be able to discuss working conditions with union representatives or lawyers.

Based on this ALJ decision, employers should continue to exercise caution when making employment decisions based on social media comments. There continues to be a fine line between protected activity and unprotected activity when it comes to employees’ social media comments about their employers. In addition, employers should review and possibly revise their handbooks to ensure they cannot be read as restricting employees’ Section 7 rights.

Domestic Partner Developments- A Breakfast Discussion Sponsored by WEB Network

by McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 7, 2011 | Employment, Health and Welfare Plans

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 (7:30am breakfast and networking, 8:00am program)

Since June 1, 2011, Illinois has recognizee civil unions, and insured employee benefits plans in Illinois must offer a civil union partner the same benefits as offered to an opposite-sex married partner. Other states, like New York, have recently gone further, and offer full recognition of same-sex marriages. Although federal law defines marriage as between only a man and a woman under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government now has refused to defend this law, and efforts are underway to repeal this legislation. In the midst of all these changes, what is the status of these developments? What are the market trends and best benefit practices for same-sex partners and domestic partners? Come hear the answers from Todd Solomon, the expert who literally wrote the book on this topic, and from a national employer who has implemented a comprehensive domestic partner benefits strategy and domestic partner tax gross ups.

Speakers:

Todd Solomon – Partner, McDermott, Will & Emery, and author Domestic Partner Benefits: An Employer’s Guide.
Cathy van Heukelum – Senior Manager, North America HR Operations, Bain & Company, Inc.

Cost Members: $30 Non-members: $50

Contact: Lynne McEvoy
Email: lynne.mcevoy@mcgladrey.com
Phone: 312.634.4490
Website: www.webnetwork.org
UBS Tower
One North Wacker Drive
2nd floor, Mighigan II ballroom
Chicago, IL 60606

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS