Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Site Staff

Posted on September 1, 2009June 27, 2018

Texas High Court Limits Time Bar for Workers’ Compensation Claims


A 60-day period in which workers’ compensation claim payers can challenge the compensability of an injury does not apply to disputes over the extent of an injury, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled.


The ruling Friday, August 28, in State Office of Risk Management v. Mary Lawton overturned an appellate court ruling in the case in which Lawton injured her left knee in 2005 while working for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.


A dispute arose over whether the state office should pay for surgery after a “peer-review” doctor reported that a degenerative condition caused the need for surgery and not the workplace injury.


The state office contested the claim, but a workers’ comp hearing officer ruled the agency waived its right to contest it by waiting too long to dispute it.


The officer ruled that the state office could have discovered the extent of Lawton’s injury within a 60-day period established to streamline claims processing. A state appellate court agreed.


But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the 60-day rule applies to compensability and not to disputes over the extent of an injury.


The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.



Filed by Roberto Ceniceros 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.

Posted on September 1, 2009June 27, 2018

Court Rules Gay Man Can Proceed With Gender Stereotyping Suit


A gay man is not necessarily barred from filing a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if there is no federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation per se, a federal appeals court has ruled.


According to the decision Friday, August 28, by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Brian D. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms Inc., Prowel was told when he was terminated from his job at Butler, Pennsylvania-based Wise after 13 years that it was because of a lack of work. He had operated a nale encoder, which is a machine that encodes numbers and organizes business forms.


Prowel, who is homosexual, contended he was the victim of sex discrimination and retaliation.


Unlike the “genuine stereotypical male” at his plant, he said he “had a high voice and did not curse; was very well-groomed; wore what others would consider dressy clothes; was neat” and “filed his nails instead of ripping them off with a utility knife,” among other characteristics. He said he was called “princess,” “rosebud” and “faggot” by his co-workers, among other incidents. He said he was terminated several months after his employer learned he had asked co-workers to testify on his behalf in a lawsuit against the company.


In its decision that overturned a lower court ruling dismissing the case, the unanimous three-judge panel said Congress has rejected legislation that would have extended Title VII to cover sexual orientation.


“This does not mean, however, that a homosexual individual is barred from bringing a sex discrimination claim under Title VII, which plainly prohibits discrimination ‘because of sex,’ ” the court said.


“The line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination ‘because of sex’ can be difficult to draw,” and the record here “is ambiguous on this dispositive question. Accordingly, Prowel’s gender stereotyping claim must be submitted to a jury,” the court ruled.


When the facts “are considered in the light most favorable to Prowel, they constitute sufficient evidence of gender stereotyping harassment—namely, Prowel was harassed because he did not conform to Wise’s vision of how a man should look, speak and act—rather than harassment based solely on his sexual orientation,” said the court, which remanded the case for further proceedings.


The court did, however, uphold the lower court’s dismissal of Prowel’s religious discrimination claim. It said Prowel—who said he had received anonymous prayer notes, among other incidents—failed to show he had been intentionally harassed because of religion.


Prowel’s attorney, Katie R. Eyer, an associate with Salmanson Goldshaw in Philadelphia, said the decision will be “highly significant and influential.” Wise’s attorney, Kurt A. Miller, a partner with Thorp Reed & Armstrong in Pittsburgh, had no comment.



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.

Posted on September 1, 2009June 27, 2018

TOOL Health Observances for September

Employers seeking help in ensuring that employees are thinking about cancer prevention may find valuable resources through Welcoa this month: September is Prostate Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood Cancer Month and Leukemia & Lymphoma Awareness Month. Also in September are National Suicide Prevention Week (September 6-12), America on the Move’s September Campaign and National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. Check the Wellness Council of America’s site for information and materials you might share with your employees.

Posted on August 31, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Raise the Issue of Coaching to Our Boorish Boss

Dear Ticklish Situation:

 

Thank you for your question. You’ve got a difficult situation, one that negatively affects your business, and thus deserves to be addressed.

I would first caution you to be sure your facts are correct—that Mr. Big is indeed turning off customers (more than one), that it is in fact damaging business outcomes, and that his customer visits aren’t prompted by a sales force that is failing to do its job very well. One good place to start would be to accompany Mr. Big on a few sales calls. (While you’re at it, stop “warning” customers, as doing so is disrespectful to your owner, and a clear sign to the customer that your organization doesn’t have its act together.)

Second is the matter of who best to engage the boss in receiving some coaching.

Preferably, it should come from a member of the senior leadership team (one of his direct reports)—a person who is unquestionably performing his or her own job well, is skilled at performance coaching, and has the boss’s respect. Assuming that your sales manager/executive meets these requirements, he might be the best person for the job, as he is the one most affected by Mr. Big’s unintended wake.

Third, whoever gets this assignment will want to handle it skillfully, for all the obvious reasons. Some suggestions:

• Pick a time coincident with a recent episode with an offended customer, and at a time when the boss is in a mood to listen to some feedback. Arrange for a private conversation.

• As a sign of support, start the conversation by taking some responsibility for the fact that this conversation should have occurred before now. Also, ask your boss if he’s willing to listen to some unsolicited feedback about something that is potentially deleterious to your business. (“Man up” here, and don’t hide behind others. He’ll appreciate it.)

• Take a deep breath, remember that this is a conversation and not an inquisition, and then frame the topic. I would ask for his recollection of a recent sales call that you know was off-putting to the customer. Hear him out, and listen carefully to his perspective. I would then share with him the fact that, his tremendous product knowledge notwithstanding, you have reason to believe that this customer might have been put off by his approach. Be prepared to discuss the call in detail and in particular his assessment of the customer’s reaction. Some resistance can be expected here, and will need to be dealt with. One way is to remind him that the only reason you’re bringing this up is for the good of the business, and in an effort to help him accomplish his objectives.

• As a means of helping him see the impact of this situation, point out that it’s likely this situation is costing him money. As much as he loves making independent sales calls, at some level doing so could be hampering the development of his sales force. It might be beneficial to pose this as a question: “If you were being paid to do a job, would it bother you if your boss continually felt the need to do your job for you?”

• Once it’s evident that the topic is clear and both of you have a full appreciation for it, you’ll want to at least offer to work with him to find a course of action that will serve the business well and be satisfactory to him at the same time. One possibility might involve him continuing to make sales calls but in a joint capacity with sales reps where his role might be better leveraged by doing more observing, teaching and supporting than selling.

• When the conversation is over, leave it in the room. Whether he agrees with you or not, you have at least responsibly raised his awareness of something that is keeping the organization from performing optimally. If your boss is as smart as we think he is, he will appreciate someone who cares enough—and has the courage—to discuss the matter candidly with him.

SOURCE: Richard Hadden and Bill Catlette, co-authors, Contented Cows MOOve Faster, August 13, 2009

LEARN MORE: Please read HR Feedback for Your Boss for additional insight on handling this issue.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on August 28, 2009August 31, 2018

Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurer to Be Liquidated


A Florida judge has ordered First Commercial Insurance Co. and its subsidiary, First Commercial Transportation & Property Insurance Co., into liquidation, Florida’s Department of Financial Services said Wednesday, August 26.


The Florida Department of Financial Services has acted as the appointed receiver of FCIC and FCTPIC since July 10, when the companies consented to be placed in receivership for the purpose of rehabilitation.


Miami-based FCIC wrote workers’ compensation, commercial auto, general liability and multi-peril policies in Florida and Georgia, the Department of Financial Services said.


FCIC and its unit have approximately 18,000 in-force policies that are canceled effective September 23. The Department of Financial Services has been appointed receiver of both entities.



Filed by Roberto Ceniceros 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.

Posted on August 28, 2009June 27, 2018

Sale of California Workers’ Compensation Fund Assets Faces Challenge


California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner on Thursday, August 27, said he will file a lawsuit to have the sale of $1 billion in State Compensation Insurance Fund assets declared unconstitutional.


After a recommendation by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a state budget revision in July authorized selling $1 billion in SCIF’s assets to bolster the state’s ailing general fund.


But Poizner said the budget revision violates a provision of California’s constitution that requires “appropriate legislation” to establish a workers’ comp system.


“The pilfering of funds used to pay the claims of injured workers to instead help fill the state budget gap is both unconscionable and unconstitutional,” the commissioner said in a statement. “This $1 billion sale of SCIF assets could not only endanger the solvency of SCIF, but is a direct affront to the state’s jobs and business climate.”


The lawsuit, naming California Department of Finance Director Michael Genest and State Treasurer Bill Lockyer as defendants, is expected to be filed in Sacramento County Superior Court in the coming days, the commissioner said.



Filed by Roberto Ceniceros 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.

Posted on August 28, 2009June 27, 2018

Lawmakers Say Health Care Reform Bill May Lose Negotiated Payments


Two key lawmakers said that a provision in the House health care reform bill that would allow a public health plan to negotiate payments with providers could be dropped from a bill passed by a crucial House panel.


Rep. Pete Stark, D-California, chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and a principal author of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, said he wants payments based on Medicare’s rate schedule—a measure that puts him at odds with the provider community as well as the more conservative wing of his party.


“I think most of us agree that we pay too much to providers now,” Stark told reporters on a conference call.


At issue is a provision included in a House bill that allows the Health and Human Services secretary to negotiate pay rates with hospitals and doctors. The measure was added after a bloc of fiscally conservative Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, threatened to stall the bill.


Providers have long contended that Medicare payments don’t cover the cost of care. Neither Stark nor Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-California, who helped shape negotiations between three different committees, suggested the provision would be a deal breaker, but each warned that it could drive up costs rather than lower them.


“To have negotiated rates would cost American taxpayers money,” Becerra said, citing a report by congressional budgeters. “If one of your principles is to really drive costs down, well, there’s tens of billions of dollars on the table right now in how you structure the public option.”


Stark, who is critical of the Blue Dog wing of the party, said lawmakers will continue to negotiate when they return to Washington in September.



Filed by Matthew DoBias of Modern Healthcare, 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.

Posted on August 28, 2009August 31, 2018

EEOC Sues UPS Over Leave Policy, Firing of Worker With Multiple Sclerosis


The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued United Parcel Service Inc. on Thursday, August 27, alleging the packaging giant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated an administrative assistant with multiple sclerosis.


The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, seeks class-action status on behalf of a class of disabled UPS employees whom the EEOC alleges were similarly unfairly treated under the company’s 12-month leave policy.


According to an EEOC press release, Trudi Momsen took a 12-month leave of absence from her job at UPS when she began experiencing symptoms of what was later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis.


She returned to work for a few weeks after the leave period was up, but soon thereafter needed additional time off after experiencing what she believed to be negative side effects of her medication. Although Momsen could have returned to work after the additional two-week leave, UPS fired her for exceeding its 12-month leave policy.


In the release, EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said that leave policies that set arbitrary deadlines for returning to work after medical treatment, such as those at UPS, “unfairly keep disabled employees from working. Sometimes a simple conversation with the employee about what might be needed to return to work is all that is necessary to keep valued employees in their jobs.”


The suit seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for Momsen and a class of disabled employees whom UPS allegedly similarly refused to accommodate.


In a statement, UPS called the EEOC suit “surprising and misdirected.”


“The employee in this case never asked for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Following nearly a year’s leave of paid absence, she returned to work after being released to return to her regular job without restrictions,” UPS said. Then 18 days later, she “in essence, abandoned her position without ever providing management any medical documentation justifying additional time off.”


UPS described its 12-month leave policy as “one of the more generous and flexible leave policies in corporate America.”


The policy is not “automatic or absolute and exceptions may be granted when employees seek an accommodation under the ADA,” it said, noting that it has “many examples” of employees whose leave has been extended beyond 12 months.


UPS said it will “vigorously defend” its policy.



Filed by Sally Roberts 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.

Posted on August 27, 2009August 31, 2018

The List—The 30 Highest-Paid Human Resources Leaders at Publicly Traded U.S. Companies

Click here to view the charts.

Posted on August 26, 2009August 31, 2018

Kennedy’s Legacy Includes Landmark Benefits Laws


Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, the standard bearer for universal health coverage during his more than four decades in the U.S. Senate and whose legislative accomplishments had a huge influence on the design on employee benefit plans, died Tuesday evening, August 25, more than a year after he was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.


“An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States senator of our time,” President Barack Obama said Wednesday, August 26.


His legislative successes in the employee benefits arena are numerous and significant. He was a driving force behind the passage of legislation in 1978 that requires health care plans to provide the same coverage for maternity and childbirth as other medical conditions, a change that expanded benefits for millions of women.


In 1996, he played a key role in the enactment of legislation that curbed the use of exclusions of pre-existing medical conditions in health plans. That law makes it easier for employees to change jobs without losing coverage for current medical conditions.


His decision several years ago to invite business groups, insurers and mental health organizations to work together and develop mental health care benefits parity legislation was the starting point that led to the passage of a parity bill last year.


The strong support that developed and held firm behind the measure Sen. Kennedy championed ultimately led backers of a parity bill passed by the House to drop a provision—one vehemently opposed by employers—that would have required group health care plans to provide coverage for any mental condition listed in the psychiatric industry’s compendium of mental disorders.


The measure that ultimately passed goes into effect next year and will require group health care plans to provide the same coverage for mental disorders as other medical conditions, ending widespread discriminatory design practices.


While known for his soaring oratory, his success was due to his ability to negotiate and to compromise. The enactment of the portability bill had much to do with Sen. Kennedy’s decision to accept a Republican provision to allow employers to offer medical savings accounts—the predecessor to health savings accounts.


In his last major public address, which he made at the Democratic National Convention a year ago in Denver, he briefly but eloquently described one of his great passions in his 46-year career in the Senate: the need to expand health insurance coverage.


He said there was “new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American—north, south, east and west; young, old—will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”


Because of his illness, Sen. Kennedy was not an active player in the debate and passage of sweeping health care reform legislation in July by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Senate panel he chaired.


Benefit lobbyists earlier said his illness was felt markedly as his successor, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, lacked Sen. Kennedy’s command of health care issues. Sen. Kennedy’s death could influence the outcome of the legislation, with the loss of a reform champion who also had the ability to hammer out compromises with opponents.



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.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 … Page 416 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress