Author: Site Staff

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a religious school can claim a “ministerial exception” to a discrimination charge under the Americans with Disabilities Act laws for a teacher who taught primarily secular subjects.

The case the court accepted March 28 in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Cheryl Perich v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School involves Perich, who was a “called” teacher at the Redford, Michigan-based school.

Qualifying as a called teacher requires a certificate of admission into the teaching ministry. A called teacher receives the title of “commissioned minister,” but religion consumed only 45 minutes of Perich’s seven-hour school day, according to court papers.

Perich was terminated in 2005 from her position after the school refused to reinstate her after a disability leave, although a doctor said she could return to work with no restrictions. She then filed a lawsuit, claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A lower court agreed with the school that it was entitled to a “ministerial exception” to the ADA and dismissed the case.

However, in its unanimous opinion last year, a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati disagreed. The “legislative history makes clear that Congress intended the ADA to broadly protect employees of religious entities from retaliation on the job, subject only to narrowly drawn religious exemption,” the appeals court ruled.

“The fact that Perich participated in and led some religious activities throughout the day does not make her primary function religious,” the appeals court said. “This is underscored by the fact that teachers were not required to be called or even Lutheran to conduct these religious activities, and at least one teacher at Hosanna-Tabor was not Lutheran.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a religious school can claim a “ministerial exception” to a discrimination charge under the Americans with Disabilities Act laws for a teacher who taught primarily secular subjects.

The case the court accepted March 28 in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Cheryl Perich v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School involves Perich, who was a “called” teacher at the Redford, Michigan-based school.

Qualifying as a called teacher requires a certificate of admission into the teaching ministry. A called teacher receives the title of “commissioned minister,” but religion consumed only 45 minutes of Perich’s seven-hour school day, according to court papers.

Perich was terminated in 2005 from her position after the school refused to reinstate her after a disability leave, although a doctor said she could return to work with no restrictions. She then filed a lawsuit, claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A lower court agreed with the school that it was entitled to a “ministerial exception” to the ADA and dismissed the case.

However, in its unanimous opinion last year, a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati disagreed. The “legislative history makes clear that Congress intended the ADA to broadly protect employees of religious entities from retaliation on the job, subject only to narrowly drawn religious exemption,” the appeals court ruled.

“The fact that Perich participated in and led some religious activities throughout the day does not make her primary function religious,” the appeals court said. “This is underscored by the fact that teachers were not required to be called or even Lutheran to conduct these religious activities, and at least one teacher at Hosanna-Tabor was not Lutheran.” 

Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

The Internal Revenue Service said on March 29 that it will give smaller employers even more time to comply with a health care reform law requirement that employers report the cost of coverage on employees’ W-2 wage and income statements.

In addition, the IRS also clarified that the reporting requirement does not apply to retirees receiving health care coverage.

Under the reform law, employers were required to provide health care cost information on 2011 W-2 statements that are distributed to employees in 2012. But last year, the IRS waived that requirement for 2011 and said the health care cost reporting requirement would apply to 2012 W-2s, which are issued in 2013.

Under the guidance, employers that issue fewer than 250 W-2s in 2011 will not be required the cost of coverage on the 2012 W-2s.

Those employers “will not be required to report the cost of health coverage … prior to January 2014. This transition relief will continue until the issuance of further guidance,” the IRS said.

In addition, the IRS made clear that employers will not have to issue W-2s to retirees who receive health care coverage but no longer receive wages or salary.

“An employer is not required to issue Form W-2 including the aggregate reportable cost to an individual to whom the employer is not otherwise required to issue a Form W-2,” the IRS said.

The IRS guidance resolves a key question raised by employers with retiree health care plans, said Andy Anderson, a partner with law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Chicago.  

Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

The Securities and Exchange Commission staff member who coordinated the agency’s study of a universal fiduciary duty for retail investment advice said March 28 that a follow-up regulation won’t come until later in the year.

The fiduciary study, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law, was delivered to Congress in January. The staff report called for SEC commissioners to extend the fiduciary duty requirement to broker dealers to protect investors, who it says are confused by differing standards that investment advisers and brokers must meet.

The study, however, has run into resistance from the two Republican SEC commissioners, Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes, who dissented when it was transmitted to Capitol Hill. They argued that the study’s conclusion was not backed up by rigorous economic analysis.

Congressional Republicans recently sent a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro urging her not to proceed with the rulemaking, citing the same concerns expressed by Casey and Paredes.

A Dodd-Frank timeline on the SEC website says that the agency will promulgate a fiduciary-duty regulation sometime between April and June. The Dodd-Frank law authorizes the SEC to proceed with the rulemaking.

But Jennifer McHugh, senior adviser to Schapiro and coordinator of the fiduciary study, told an audience at an Investment Company Institute conference in California that SEC action will “likely occur later in the year.”

She said that the agency has not formed a “rulemaking team” and is “meeting with outsiders to get their reaction rather than moving straight to rulemaking.”

“We’ve been focused on practical, real-world implications” of imposing a universal standard of care, she said.  

Filed by Mark Schoeff Jr. of InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

An employee who insulted his supervisor was guilty of willful misconduct and is not entitled to unemployment insurance, a Connecticut appellate court has ruled in upholding a lower court.

According to the decision in Andre Joseph v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act by the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford, Joseph began working in 2007 for Minnesota-based United Healthcare Services Inc., now UnitedHealthcare.

In 2008, the company named Debbie Lee as his accounting supervisor. Lee attempted to train Joseph on reconciling accounts on several occasions, but his work continued to be unsatisfactory, according to the March 22 decision.

When his reconciliations were past due because he was unable to complete his work using the methods Lee had ordered, she again sent him an email in January 2009 explaining the methods she wanted him to use.

The plaintiff replied, “You do not have the technical accounting skills to be a supervisor and that will be your downfall.” When Lee responded that she had 20 years of accounting experience, Joseph wrote that “non value added experience non contemporary.”

Joseph was dismissed the same day the emails were exchanged. A referee upheld the dismissal, stating Joseph’s actions constituted “willful misconduct” and he was not entitled to unemployment insurance.

A lower court ruled that Joseph was not entitled to reconsideration of the Employment Security Division Board of Review’s decision to reject his assertion that he was discharged as a whistle-blower for challenging UnitedHealthcare’s practices and denied him benefits.

The appellate court agreed. “The appeals referee concluded, and the board agreed, that the emails that the plaintiff sent to Lee insulted her personally and undermined her supervisory authority and, therefore, his actions rose to the level of willful misconduct in the course of employment. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding,” the court ruled.  

Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

A Wisconsin circuit court judge on March 18 temporarily blocked a state law that would require pension contributions from most state and local employees as well as limit their collective bargaining rights.

The lawsuit, filed March 16 by Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne alleged the legislation was adopted in violation of Wisconsin’s open meetings law. The state Senate and state Assembly passed the legislation March 9-10, respectively. It was signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker on March 11.

The order by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi stops Wisconsin secretary of state Douglas La Follette from publishing the bill, which legally blocks its implementation.

A hearing on the injunction is scheduled for March 29. The law was to become effective March 26.

The law excludes police and fire employees, who would continue to have full collective bargaining powers, enabling employers to pick up their pension contributions.

For employers without a collective bargaining agreement in force, employees would be required to pay half of the annual actuarially required retirement plan contributions, according to a written statement of the Wisconsin Department Employee Trust Funds.

The three systems affected by the legislation are the $79.8 billion Wisconsin Retirement System, the $4.5 billion Milwaukee City Employees’ Retirement System and the $2.1 billion Milwaukee County Employees Retirement System.  

Filed by Barry B. Burr of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.