I recently provided insight for an article in HR Dive on ageism in the workplace and how employers can address these stereotypes.
Ageism can come in many forms in the workplace. For example, a typical stereotype can include expecting an older employee to have a problem adjusting to the new computer system, believing they will be resistant to change or wondering how an older employee is going to “keep up” with the job’s demands.
I recently discussed a case currently under review by the Eleventh Circuit Court that should provide clarity on whether, and under what circumstances, a licensed professional counselor or therapist can be a “healthcare provider” – and therefore qualified to verify a need for leave – under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The case centers around an employee who was fired from her job the same day she met with a licensed counselor who recommended leave after determining the employee had depression and anxiety. While the timing and specific circumstances of the case are unusual, the case does call into question the larger issue of who can be considered a healthcare provider under the FMLA.
In an article published by the Nashville Business Journal, we urge employers to get ready for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s data reporting. Although facing criticism, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is moving forward with its pay data collection, and with the reporting deadline set for September 30, employers should prepare now.
Employers with more than 100 employees and any federal contractors with more with 50 employees are required to submit an EEO-1 survey, which has historically analyzed organizations’ employment data categorized by sex, race and ethnicity. Under the new reporting requirements, employers and federal contractors with more than 100 employees will also report compensation data.
Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know about EEOC’s Pay Data Collection Plan
I recently provided insight for an article outlining how companies should discuss retirement plans with their older employees. I explained that an annual review period would be an appropriate time to discuss an employee’s upcoming plans for retirement and any need for success planning.
“Employers should pose questions to employees about retirement plans with the sole goal of understanding staffing needs for future workforce planning,” I explained. “This discussion should be general in nature, should not make reference to the employee’s age or ‘generational’ comments, and should promptly end if the employee indicates that retirement is not a consideration at that point.”
Continue Reading How Can Companies Talk to Baby Boomer Employees About Retirement?
Student loan debt in the United States is escalating, and employers are finding it harder to fill open positions. In an effort to tackle both of these issues, more employers have been offering student loan repayment opportunities as part of the benefits packages they offer employees. In an article published by the Nashville Business Journal, I discussed student loan repayment benefits offered by employers and the IRS’s ruling last year regarding this issue.
For example, employers can offer student loan debt management programs that offer counseling services and access to student loan marketplaces or more favorable finance terms. In May 2018, the IRS issued a ruling allowing an employer to make contributions to its 401(k) plan on behalf of employees who make payments toward their student loan.
Continue Reading Student Loan Repayment Benefits Offered by Employers
I am looking forward to presenting on recent pay equity trends at the Tennessee Human Rights Commission’s (THRC) 2019 Employment Law Seminar.
The seminar will be held at the One Century Place Conference Center in Nashville on Wednesday, June 12, 2019 from 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. CST.
For more information and to register, visit the THRC event web page.
Last Filing for Calendar Year Plans!
The annual filing (and fee payment) for applicable self-insured health plans and specified health insurance policies used to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (the PCORI fee) is due by Wednesday, July 31, 2019. For calendar year plans and policies, this will be the last required PCORI filing and fee payment. For plan and policy years ending after December 31, 2018 and before October 1, 2019, one more filing and fee payment will be required (due July 31, 2020).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return, is still used to report and pay (in Part II, IRS No. 133) the annual PCORI fee. The filing rules have not changed, although the applicable rate has increased to $2.45 per covered life (announced via IRS Notice 2018-85).
Continue Reading Reminder – Annual Deadline (July 31) to Report and Pay PCORI Fee is Approaching
More and more companies are implementing socially conscious policies on topics ranging from banning the use of plastic-ware to refusing to reimburse employees for meals that include meat or are otherwise non-vegan. Companies are generally free to implement these types of policies, as long as employees are not unlawfully discriminated against as part of the policy. I recently examined the legality of company implementation of socially conscious policies in the workplace in an article published Workplace Magazine.
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, and the American with Disabilities Act protects employees with disabilities; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits age discrimination. But there is no employment law protecting an employee’s right to use plastic,” I explained.
Continue Reading The Legality of Socially Conscious Workplace Policies
I was quoted in a piece published in Business Insurance discussing the Supreme Court’s review of three cases related to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Two of the cases, Melissa Zarda et al. v. Altitude Express and Gerald Lynn Bostock V. Clayton County, will be heard together. Both cases include employees contending they were fired from their jobs due to their sexual orientation.
The third case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, will be heard separately. In that case, the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati ruled in favor of a transgender worker who was fired when she told her funeral home employer she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female.
Continue Reading Three Supreme Court Cases Seeking Protection for LGBT Employees
The Supreme Court ruled on April 24, 2019 that an arbitration agreement which is ambiguous as to whether the parties had agreed to class arbitration was insufficient to require a party to participate in class arbitration.
In the 2011 case Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2011) the Supreme Court decided that “silence” in an arbitration agreement regarding the issue of class arbitration meant that a party could not be compelled to engage in class arbitration. In the more recent case of Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, an employee had sought to compel his employer to arbitrate on a class basis claims arising out of the release of personal data belonging to its employees.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules on Enforcement of Class Arbitration