Category: Benefits

Posted on

Elder Care — You Can’t Buy, Pray or Prescribe Your Way Out of It

elder care

Ed Frauenheim is on assignment.

I had been looking forward to lunch with my friend Kate for some time. During the past few years we’ve bonded over the travails of raising teenagers, the challenges of balancing work and home and the exhausting job of caring for elderly parents. We laugh a lot when we’re together too, but those topics always seem to creep into our conversations—the last one with increasing frequency.

We’ve tried to get together several times in the last year but as any working mom knows, coordinating schedules with friends often means planning so far in advance several holidays can go by before you actually see each other. But this time the planets had aligned and our lunch date was set. I was looking forward to it.

The day before she sent me an email that began with: “Well, things with my parents have gone to hell in a hand basket and I’m heading to Tennessee for a week.” Her mom is struggling with dementia and her father is in failing physical health. Watching their decline has been devastating for Kate and her family.

So it goes with the life of a caregiver. There are good days and there are bad days and there are days when all hell breaks loose. One minute you’re on the phone with your mom planning a trip to the mall and the next minute you’re in the emergency room praying that she didn’t have a stroke or break her hip or catch pneumonia. A million things can go wrong when our bodies start to fail us.

It’s a wild and unpredictable ride and eventually, most of us will climb aboard. Or as Greg Johnson, director of family care giving at New York-based EmblemHealth, Inc. says, “you can’t buy, pray or prescribe your way out of it.” When a parent needs help few of us have much choice other than stepping up and doing the best we can.

And that’s exactly what 65 million people are doing every day — caring for an elderly relative, often while holding down a full-time job. Any many of them are also raising children — the sandwich generation as they are called. I am one of them. I have two amazing teenagers and one loving 86-year-old mother, and all three are at a stage in their lives where they need me more than ever.

Trying to meet their needs while working full time often leaves me feeling drained and in need of some care myself. Luckily, I have understanding editors who allow me to work from home when I need to, but not everyone is so lucky. Just ask the telecommuters at Yahoo!

With people living longer the number of caregivers in the workplace is rising rapidly and that costs companies up to $34 billion a year due to absenteeism and lost productivity. That doesn’t include health care costs, which are higher for caregivers who are more likely to suffer from heart disease, depression and other health issues than noncaregivers. At the same time the number of companies offering elder care programs and services has declined.

That means more employees are using lunch breaks to drive dad to the doctor or sort out medical bills. Employees at companies without elder care referral services or flextime or other supports must navigate the confusing world of Medicare and Medicaid and nursing homes and in-home care alone and during any spare moment, including vacation time. Not surprisingly, burnout and fatigue are higher for caregivers than for other workers.

But there is much that employers can do to help those workers, like offering flextime and resource-and-referral services. Some companies, like Johnson & Johnson in New Jersey, are taking it a few steps further, offering free geriatric care services to its employees. Caregivers work with a case manager who checks in regularly and will even visit nursing homes and other facilities with the family.

While many employers can’t afford such extensive supports, just offering flexible schedules and a little understanding can go a long way in helping workers stay healthy and in boosting retention and loyalty.

The issue of elder care will gain more attention as more workers become family caregivers—a role typically dominated by women. And as more women move into executive positions the problem of caring for mom or dad will become just as pressing as finding good child care.

Johnson of EmblemHealth calls caregivers “the backbone of the world.” But the weight of supporting kids and parents can be crushing. By providing elder care support employers can do a lot to lighten their load.

Posted on

Is an Employer Obligated to Provide Light Duty to an Employee Returning From FMLA Leave?

Many employers use temporary light duty assignments to enable ill or injured employees to return to work before they are fully healed. In fact, rehabilitation specialists will tell you that it is better for both the employee and the employer for one to return to work sooner on a modified assignment than to wait until full recovery. Is an employer required to offer light duty to an ill or hurt employee out on Family and Medical Leave Act leave, or can an employer require an employee to remain on FMLA leave until full recovery? According to James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago (7th Cir. 2/13/13), light duty is not a right to which employees can insist under the FMLA.

Carris James spent his 22-year career with the Hyatt Regency Chicago as a banquet steward. In March 2007, he suffered a non-work-related eye injury and required surgery. The company offered him FMLA leave, which he accepted. Before his medical leave ended (which his collective bargaining agreement had extended beyond the FMLA’s required 12 weeks), James faxed a note from one of his physicians, which stated that James could return to work with certain lifting and bending restrictions. Those restrictions would have prevented him from returning to his banquet steward position. When Hyatt refused to offer light duty, James sued.

James argued that Hyatt interfered with his FMLA entitlement when it did not reinstate him to a light duty position. The court disagreed. It relied on the plain language of the FMLA’s regulations: “If the employee is unable to perform an essential function of the position because of a physical or mental condition … the employee has no right to restoration to another position under the FMLA.” Because light duty is not an “equivalent” position, the FMLA does not mandate restoration to a light duty position. It only protects employees who can return and perform all of the essential functions of their position. Because James’s doctor only released him to light duty, the company had no obligation under the FMLA to bring him back to work.

While the answer to this issue under the FMLA is fairly straight forward, often times the Americans with Disabilities Act will dictate a different result. Before denying light duty to an employee returning from FMLA leave, you must consider whether the ADA requires the light duty as a reasonable accommodation. If you have light duty available, and do not have to create a light duty position to accommodate the employee, the ADA will likely require the consideration of temporary light duty as a reasonable accommodation.

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Posted on

‘Global Nomads’ Finding There’s No Place Like Home for Benefits

Just as the number of assignments abroad is on the rise, more people are moving overseas for work—and are staying there.

A survey by Mercer found that the percentage of “global nomads”—those who move from country to country on long-term assignments—jumped from 6 percent to 10 percent of the expatriate population between the consultancy’s 2008-09 and 2011-12 Benefits Survey for Expatriates and Internationally Mobile Employees.

Nearly 300 multinational firms took part in the most recent survey, and together they have 119,000 expats. In 2008-09, almost 250 companies were surveyed, which had 94,000 expats.

The term “global nomad” applies to those in a variety of situations, such as a U.S.-based company that sends an American employee to a number of countries around the world; an American company that hires a European worker and sends that employee to work in the Middle East; or an American company that hires a Latin American person and sends that worker to various Latin American countries.

The upturn in global nomads has focused more attention on their medical and retirement benefits.

Almost all companies surveyed provide health insurance for all their expat employees. Many companies turn to international medical plans, so coverage is relatively comparable regardless of where an employee is based. “It’s the most popular approach taken by companies, especially with global nomads,” says Roger Herod, a principal in Mercer’s global mobility consulting business.

The humanitarian organization World Vision International has a self-insured plan and makes use of Cigna International to help with the health insurance claims process, says Ginny Pedevill, senior human resources manager.

World Vision has about 45,000 employees based in about 100 countries, and about 700 are on long-term international assignments.

With its self-insured health plan, World Vision’s coverage is consistent from country to country, Pedevill says. “Less-developed areas that may not have adequate health systems may require us to medically evacuate the employee to the closest health center that would be able to provide quality care.”

Mercer’s survey found about two-thirds of global nomads and those on long-term international assignments remain in their home country’s retirement plans.

But in some cases that’s not possible because the person’s home country doesn’t have a suitable pension plan, Herod says, such as an Eastern European who is sent on various assignments abroad for a Western company.

It’s particularly difficult for global nomads, Herod says, because they “pick up bits and pieces of pension rights from the different companies they’ve worked in. It doesn’t amount to anything really significant.”

Only 12 percent companies surveyed make use of international retirement plans. “It’s not as common as it probably should be,” he says. “This is like the hidden iceberg. We have significant numbers of multinational corporations that have large numbers of global nomads and they have not yet addressed this pension problem with them.”

Susan Ladika is a writer based in Tampa, Florida. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Pre-existing Perspective: New York Court Rules Against Reimbursing Employer

An injured worker’s diabetes and obesity are not pre-existing conditions that would allow New York’s Special Disability Fund to reimburse her employer for workers’ compensation benefits, a New York appellate court ruled on Jan. 31.

The self-insured Schenectady Community Action Program Inc. sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for JoAnn LaDuke’s workers’ compensation benefits. LaDuke was an employee of the program for nearly 20 years when she sustained back and shoulder injuries while assisting students exiting a bus in May 2002, according to court records.

New York’s disability fund argued it was not liable for LaDuke’s benefits, as the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board had initially determined. The New York appellate court reversed the compensation board’s decision.

The court ruled LaDuke’s diabetes and obesity did not hinder her ability to perform her job.

The “claimant testified that, although she had suffered from diabetes for over 20 years, it was controlled through oral medication and had never affected her ability to perform the job,” according to the court’s ruling.

As for her obesity, LaDuke testified that she had “always been heavy” and it never proved a hindrance to her job performance. “In any event, claimant testified that she had never been diagnosed with a medial condition that caused her obesity, and there is no instance in which obesity, lacking a medical basis that would ensure permanency, has been found to be a pre-existing condition,” the court ruled.

Max Mihelich is Workforce’s editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com

Posted on

NHL Players Score New Pension Plan

Players taking to the ice in a shortened National Hockey League season will have their own defined benefit plan.

The new plan was included in the 10-year collective bargaining agreement reached Jan. 6 between the NHL and the National Hockey League Players’ Association. The league’s Board of Governors approved the agreement on Jan. 9 and the players voted overwhelmingly to ratify the deal Jan. 12, ending a four-month lockout. The season, which was originally slated to start in early October, was scheduled to begin Jan. 19.

The league and NHLPA now turn to dealing with the nuts and bolts of the new Taft-Hartley plan, to be administered by a benefits committee comprising three or four representatives of the NHL and the players’ association, said Alex Dagg, the union’s director of operations based in Toronto.

Through an e-mail from John Dellapina, NHL spokesman, league CFO Craig Harnett in New York confirmed the plan will be jointly administered with the players’ association through the committee. Neither Hartnett nor the NHL would provide further details or comment.

League players previously had two defined contribution plans—the National Hockey League Retirement Plan (United States), New York, and the NHL Club Pension Plan and Trust, Toronto. The U.S. plan, a 401(k), had $22.6 million in assets as of June 30, 2011, according to the league’s latest Form 5500 filing. The size of the Canadian plan could not be learned.

The DC plans, created during the last league lockout in 2005, will be restructured into voluntary contribution plans and neither plan will be terminated, Dagg said.

Players were locked out by the league in late September when negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement broke down. Although negotiations before and during the lockout centered on sharing of hockey-related revenue, the pension plan was “the centerpiece of the deal for the players,” according to Winnipeg Jets defenseman Ron Hainsey, who took part in negotiations. Hainsey was quoted in an interview on the NHLPA’s website when the tentative agreement was reached.

The league’s 30 teams will contribute to the plan, although total contributions will be based on the players’ share of overall league revenue, so the amount won’t always be the same depending on overall player salaries. The new agreement calls for players to get half of all league revenue; that’s down from the 54 percent to 57 percent range players received under the 2005 agreement. The league’s salary cap also was reduced, to $63.4 million per team in 2013-14 from this season’s $70.2 million.

John McGowan Jr., Cleveland-based partner at the law firm of Baker & Hostetler L.L.P. who has advised the National Football League Management Council on pension issues, said that although the assets for contributions are budgeted as part of the 50 percent players’ share of revenue, the assets themselves are from the clubs and players would not contribute to the plan.

Still to be resolved are governance issues for the new plan, Dagg said, including the amount of contributions, asset management and tax issues.

What makes the issues that remain so complex is that seven of those NHL clubs are in Canada, which has different tax and pension rules than the U.S., Dagg said. “It’s very complicated because it (the new defined benefit plan) covers both players in Canada and the United States, and we have to adhere to tax rules in both countries as well as U.S. and provincial (Canada) pension rules,” she said. “In Canada, pension rules for these kinds of plans are provincial.”

She said the benefits committee ultimately would determine whether RFPs would be issued for investment consultants, money managers or other service providers, although neither the league nor the union is close to making that decision. “We’ll need to work with the league on all these issues,” she said. “The trust agreement to create the plan is still in discussion,” because the agreement approved by both sides only established the framework for the plan.

Dagg said the plan would more closely resemble a Taft-Hartley plan run by Major League Baseball because one of its clubs, the Toronto Blue Jays, is based in Canada. The $2.04 billion Major League Baseball Players Pension Plan is based in New York.

Although much of the NHL pension plan details still have to be ironed out, McGowan said the tax issues to be dealt with between U.S.- and Canadian-based clubs probably already have been studied. “Both parties have looked at the U.S.-Canada Income Tax (Convention),” he said. “They know what the tax issues are. Tax results are predictable.”

Specific tax issues to be studied are the deductibility of contributions by clubs, their applicability to employment taxes and the ability to defer taxes on player benefits until they are paid out.

Although clubs would be responsible for contributions to the plan, McGowan said, those assets might not come directly from club coffers. In the NFL, for example, contributions to the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, New York, are funded through television revenue allocated to each of the league’s 32 teams. The plan had about $1.4 billion in assets as of March 2012, the latest data available, according to the website of the NFL Players Association. And in baseball, contributions use allocations from the proceeds of each year’s All-Star Game, he said.

McGowan thought the NHL clubs would use TV revenue received from the league’s contracts to fund their contributions. According to league and network sources, the NHL has a contract with NBC Sports Group to get $2 billion over 10 years for U.S. television and media rights through the 2020-21 season.

In Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. paid $600 million over six years for the rights to “Hockey Night in Canada.” That contract with the NHL expires in 2014.

“Those TV contracts are a reliable funding source,” McGowan said. “The NFL uses it, and probably the NHL will, too.”

Rick Baert writes for Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. Comment below or 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.

Posted on

Can You Hear Me Now? Employer Cannot Reject Disabled Employee Without Individualized Inquiry of the Ability to Do the Job

Nicholas Keith has been deaf since birth. He is also, apparently, a pretty good swimmer. He successfully completed the Oakland County, Michigan, lifeguard training course with the assistance of sign language interpreter to communicate instructions. The county rescinded its conditional job offer for a lifeguard position after Keith’s pre-employment physical. The examining doctor approved Keith’s employment as a lifeguard if his deafness was “constantly accommodated.” Without any consultation with Keith, the county unsuccessfully brainstormed possible accommodations, and, ultimately, rescinded the job offer.

In Keith v. Oakland County (1/10/13) [pdf], the 6th Circuit reversed the district court’s order dismissing Keith’s disability discrimination lawsuit. The court relied upon the ADA’s requirement for an “individualized inquiry in determining whether an [employee’s or applicant’s] disability or other condition disqualifies him from a particular position.”

In this case, the county made no individualized inquiry.

After Dr. Work entered the examination room and briefly reviewed Keith’s file, he declared, “He’s deaf; he can’t be a lifeguard.” Dr. Work made no effort to determine whether, despite his deafness, Keith could nonetheless perform the essential functions of the position, either with or without reasonable accommodation. Indeed, Dr. Work has no education, training, or experience in assessing the ability of deaf individuals to work as lifeguards. Dr. Work’s cursory medical examination is precisely the type that the ADA was designed to prohibit.

What is the takeaway for employers? If you are dealing with disabled applicants or employees, you cannot make the employment decision in a vacuum. You must act based on the actual disability and its effect on the particular individual’s ability to perform the job. You should consider:

  • the individual’s personal characteristics;
  • the actual medical condition; and
  • the effect, if any, the condition may have on the ability to perform the specific job in question.

Most importantly, you should include the individual in the assessment. No one is a better judge of one’s real-world abilities and limitations than the individual himself or herself.

If you failing to engage in this individualized inquiry, it will look like you are making the employment decision based on stereotypes and generalizations, which the ADA is supposed to rid from the workplace. That perception will not bode well for your defense of an ADA lawsuit.

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Posted on

Group Benefits Costs to Rise at Slowest Rate in 11 Years: Study

Group health benefits costs are projected to rise in the first half of 2013 at their slowest rate in more than a decade, according to a study by New York-based Buck Consultants L.L.C.

Buck’s survey of 123 insurers and benefits administrators, released Dec. 17, indicated that group health care plan cost increases through June 2013 will be between 0.2 percent and 0.6 percent lower than they were in the first half of this year.

The study noted that 2012 was the first year since 2001 that group health benefit costs were projected to grow at a rate of less than 10 percent.

Daniel Levin, a Chicago-based Buck principal and consulting actuary who directed the study, said in a press release accompanying the report that despite the projected reduction in cost growth rates, health care costs are still predicted to outpace inflation rates, “creating difficult business decisions for organizations.”

“The stubbornly high costs can be attributed to several trends, ranging from a greater use of diagnostic tests and treatments to mandated coverage of certain benefits,” Levin said in the release. “Employers need to decide how much of these increases to pass on to workers, or whether to drop coverage and pay the penalties imposed by the Affordable Care Act.”

Levin added that the study’s projections do not contemplate potential impacts of the proliferation of private health insurance exchanges.

“It remains to be seen how the development of private exchanges will affect the use of public exchange models, but it could likely impact the projected cost trends we measure in this survey,” he said.

Buck’s study predicted costs for employer-sponsored preferred provider organization plans, point-of-service plans, health maintenance organization plans and high-deductible health plans will increase by 9.7 percent, 9.5 percent, 9.3 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, through June 2013. A year ago, cost increases for all four plan types were projected to grow by 9.9 percent.

Costs for employer-sponsored Medicare supplemental plans are projected grow by 5.4 percent in the first six months of 2013, compared with 5.8 percent during the same period in 2012.

Matt Dunning writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. Comment below or 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.

Posted on

New Jersey’s Christie Rejects State-Run Health Insurance Exchange

One of the last holdouts among prominent Republican governors, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, put his state among a growing number that will defer to the federal government to run the health insurance marketplaces that are a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The picture of which states would participate in providing tightly regulated individual and small-group coverage through the exchanges beginning in 2014 has rapidly clarified since the Nov. 6 election.

Under a Dec. 14 deadline to notify the Obama administration of plans to establish a state-based exchange, 21 states have indicated they will not form their own exchange. In states that decline, HHS will operate an insurance marketplace on its own or in partnership with state officials.

Like many of his peers, Christie complained that HHS has failed to provide states enough guidance to allow them to responsibly carry out the provision. “We will comply with the Affordable Care Act, but only in the most efficient and cost-effective way for New Jersey taxpayers,” Christie said in a news release announcing the decision to veto legislation that would have started establishing a state-based exchange. “I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a state-based exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to other options and how much control they will give the states over this option that comes at the cost of our state’s taxpayers.”

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-New Jersey) issued a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” in Christie’s move because the Affordable Care Act intended for states to tailor exchanges to their own markets and communities.

Another high-profile Republican opponent of the law, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, said on Nov. 28 that her state will not operate an exchange. Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who softened his resistance to complying with the Affordable Care Act after President Barack Obama was re-elected, has yet to reveal what course his state will take with its exchange.

Twenty of the states that have reached the same conclusion as Christie are led by Republican governors. In Missouri, where the governor is Democrat Jay Nixon, voters approved a ballot question prohibiting the governor from establishing an exchange by executive order.

In Michigan, it was the state’s Republican governor who had been pushing for a state exchange. Late last month, though, a legislative committee blocked an exchange measure backed by Gov. Rick Snyder.

Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., intend to establish their own exchanges. Four states have indicated they will operate exchanges in partnership with federal officials in order to be ready to begin providing coverage under the reform law in 2014. About 25 million Americans are expected by 2022 to be covered under plans purchased through the exchanges, according to a July estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (PDF).’

Gregg Blesch writes for Modern Healthcare, a sister publication of Workforce Management. Comment below or 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.

Posted on

Pension Envy for Employees Not On the Government’s Dime

Good days are ahead for government employees if they’re lucky enough to have pension plans.

A recent analysis by Hearts & Wallets of individuals who are near or in retirement showed that those with a public pension are happier in retirement and have higher income than those who don’t have a defined-benefit plan. The firm performed a quantitative study of 4,500 people over 53, plus a focus group of 72 participants, according to Laura Varas, principal at Hearts & Wallets.

Among retired and near-retired individuals, people with public pensions enjoyed an average current household income of $65,000, compared with $50,000 for those who don’t have a pension.

Income replacement rates also are higher for those with pensions, as those people are on track to replace 80 percent of their income, compared with 71 percent for those lacking a pension.

Retirees feel the difference in their lifestyles, as 44 percent of those without a DB plan said they have been “forced to live more frugally than they would like,” compared with less than 3 in 10 of households with public pensions.

Naturally, both groups of people have vastly different attitudes about retirement. Three in 10 of the participants without a pension worry about making ends meet, compared with 17 percent of those with a defined-benefit plan. Further, nearly half of the pension “have nots” described themselves as “very concerned” about making their assets last through retirement, compared with 30 percent of households with government pensions.

Interactions in the focus groups revealed a “quiet, sad envy” among the participants with no pension, Varas said. “There isn’t anyone who’s overtly envious, but there are insinuations of that,” she added

“It’s more of a realization that they are on two different planets,” Varas said. “Those with government pensions: Some are sheepish, and others are adamant that they this is why they chose their profession.”

That attitude ended up reflected in how the participating groups feel about being retired. Fully 46 percent said they are surprised by how much they enjoy having more time and less stress in retirement, compared with 26 percent of those without a government pension.

Darla Mercado writes for Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. Comment below or 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.

Posted on

‘Time-Off Plans’: An Alternative to Comp Time

Private employers seeking to take advantage of Fair Labor Standards Act provisions that allow “time-off plans” for non-exempt employees often face a conundrum: how to reconcile a “time-off plan” with the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements?

The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees a minimum hourly wage and a premium pay rate for any work in excess of 40 hours per week. The congressional purpose behind the FLSA is twofold: (1) to bring about greater employment by providing a financial disincentive to employers who require overtime hours and (2) to compensate employees for the burden of a lengthier workweek.

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor and the courts interpret the FLSA as requiring overtime to be figured on the basis of a single workweek.

Under certain conditions, however, an employer can pay the same amount each pay period even when an employee works overtime during one or more weeks. The DOL and the courts have approved time-off plans that balance overtime—not average it.

Time-off plans allow an employer to schedule an employee off a number of hours during one week of the pay period so the wage or salary equals the desired amount of compensation for that employee even when the employee works overtime the following week. Specifically, federal courts have held that “it is permissible for the employer employing one at a fixed salary for a fixed workweek to lay off the employee a sufficient number of hours during some other week or weeks of the pay period to offset the amount of overtime worked so that the desired wage or salary for the pay period covers the total amount of compensation, including overtime.”

There is no requirement under the FLSA that overtime compensation be paid weekly. The employer can require that an employee accept the time off in lieu of overtime provided it is covered under the same pay period.

Here is how it could work, assuming a two-week pay period:

In Week One the employee works 44 hours (four nine-hour days, one eight-hour day). That employee has thus accrued four hours of overtime that should be paid time and a half. In lieu of that premium pay for overtime, in Week Two the employer can allow six hours of time off (four times x time and a half). If the time off is not taken in Week Two, then the employee must be paid for the overtime.

The time off cannot accrue from week to week in order to create a bank of leave time to be used toward a larger amount of paid leave. Also keep in mind that if an employee works the 44 hours in Week One and he or she leaves the employment or is terminated in Week Two, the employer must pay that employee overtime for Week One.

The idea behind the time-off plan is to give the employer control over an employee’s earnings by controlling the number of hours an employee is permitted to work. Because time has to be “balanced” over several weeks in a pay period, employers cannot implement time-off plans for employees who are paid weekly. The time off cannot be accumulated in one pay period to be used in another. Moreover, this is not a “use-it-or-lose-it” policy; it is a “use-it-or-be-paid-for-it” policy. If the employee does not use the time off in the following week and works a full 40 hours, the employer must pay overtime from the previous week.

Employers are constantly looking for new ways to manage employee pay in a way that fits their business. Time-off plans can be an efficient, economic and legal way to do so when implemented correctly. Due to the strictures of the FLSA and the administrative difficulties in managing time-off plans, employers are encouraged to consult with counsel prior to implementing a time-off plan.

Andrew Naylor is a partner and leader of the Labor and Employment Practice Group at Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis in Nashville, Tenn. Brian Clifford is an attorney at Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.