Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Legal

Posted on March 3, 2011August 9, 2018

CIGNA Lawsuit Claims Gender Bias

A CIGNA Healthcare Inc. manager filed a gender bias lawsuit March 3 that seeks class-action status against the health care provider, alleging the CIGNA Corp. unit gives preferential treatment to men and discriminates against its female employees.


According to Bretta Karp v. CIGNA Healthcare Inc., which was filed in federal court in Springfield, Massachusetts, the Boston-based provider contracting manager, who has worked at the unit since 1997, said she was told she was denied a promotion last year because she “came across as too aggressive” in interviews.


Instead, the job was given to a less-experienced male employee, Bill O’Donnell, who subsequently informed Karp that her largest market, Vermont, was being given to a younger, less-qualified male employee.


When Karp complained, O’Donnell made “veiled threats” to Karp, “such as reminding her that he would be writing her year-end performance review,” according to the lawsuit.


The lawsuit seeks class-action status, alleging that Karp’s experience is part of a pattern of gender discrimination at CIGNA Healthcare.


“CIGNA’s predominantly male managers hold female employees, including both [Karp] and class members, to stricter standards than male employees, and thus, female employees often receive lower performance appraisals than males for performing at the same level. Additionally, male employees more often receive favorable work assignments and other forms of preferential treatment, including the allocation of company resources,” according to the complaint.


The lawsuit also alleges a hostile work environment.


“Male supervisors and employees have harassed and intimidated female employees, have made it clear in various ways that they favor male employees and otherwise have created a working environment hostile to women,” according to the lawsuit.


Among other things, the lawsuit seeks unspecified compensation and punitive damages and a restructuring of CIGNA Healthcare’s workforce “so that females are promoted into higher and better-paying classifications, which they would have held in the absence of CIGNA’s past gender discrimination.”


The law firm that filed the action, Sanford Wittels & Heisler represented female employees of Swiss pharmaceutical firm Novartis in a class action that settled for $175 million last year.


In January, the firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York on behalf of a senior human resources manager at Toshiba Corp., seeking $100 million from a U.S. unit of the Japanese firm for alleged gender bias against women in pay and promotions.


In a written statement, Philadelphia-based CIGNA said, “We have just received the complaint and are reviewing it. We are committed to diversity and equal opportunity; our workplace policies expressly prohibit discrimination in any form and we intend to fully defend against the complaint.”


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 March 2, 2011August 9, 2018

Employer Liable for Discriminatory Adviser in Firing Supreme Court

Employers can be held liable for discriminatory conduct even if the person making the decision was not discriminatory but relied in part on those who were, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled March 1.


The court’s unanimous ruling in Vincent E. Staub v. Proctor Hospital supports what is called the “cat’s paw” theory of liability.


According to the opinion, Staub, an angiography technician at Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Illinois, was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, which required him to attend drills one weekend per month and train full time two to three weeks a year.


Two supervisors reportedly were hostile to Staub’s military obligations, and one allegedly made a false complaint to the hospital’s vice president of human resources, who partially relied on that report to terminate his employment in 2004.


Staub sued the hospital under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, or USERRA, alleging his discharge was motivated by hostility to his military obligations. A jury found that military status was a motivating factor in his discharge and awarded him $57,640 in damages.


However, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago dismissed the case, stating that a cat’s paw case “could not succeed unless the nondecision-maker exercised such ‘singular influence’ over the decision-maker that the decision to terminate was the product of ‘blind reliance,’ ” which was not the case here.


“Because the undisputed evidence established that [the HR vice president] was not wholly depending on the advice of [the supervisor], the court held that Proctor was entitled to judgment,” the 7th Circuit ruled.


However, the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court. Proctor “contends that the employer is not liable unless the de facto decision-maker … is motivated by discriminatory animus,” the high court said.


“If a supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA,” the Supreme Court ruled.


The court ruled 8-0 in favor of overturning the 7th Circuit opinion, with Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas supporting a concurring opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan not taking part in the decision.


The high court remanded the case to the 7th Circuit with instructions to decide whether to reinstate the jury verdict or to order a new trial.


The Supreme Court had been expected to deal with the cat’s paw theory since 2007, when it accepted BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. However, the case was withdrawn before it was heard.


Melinda Caterine, a Portland, Maine-based defense lawyer with Fisher & Phillips, said in addition to USERRA cases, the decision also applies to litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984.


The decision will result in “claims that more than one person was involved in the decision-making” and that some of the people had discriminatory motives, said Caterine, who was not involved in the case.


While it will not necessarily lead to more litigation, it will make it easier for employees to “survive” summary judgments and could result in more trials, she said.
Caterine said although “employees are still going to have to prove that they were terminated for an unlawful reason,” it “will likely cause employers to do more thorough investigations before they terminate an employee” beyond just looking at a personnel file or an immediate supervisor’s report.


“They’re going to have to look beyond that and do an independent investigation and determine whether there is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason” for the adverse action, Caterine said.  


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 February 17, 2011August 9, 2018

ACLU to Appeal Ruling in Medical Marijuana Case

The American Civil Liberties Union said it will appeal a ruling by a federal judge who found that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. does not have to accommodate employees who are legally registered to use medical marijuana.


The case involves Joseph Casias, a 2008 associate of the year at a Battle Creek, Michigan, Wal-Mart store who was fired after he tested positive for marijuana use.
Casias was legally registered to use marijuana to treat pain associated with an inoperable brain tumor and cancer. But he did not ingest the drug at work, according to the ACLU.


In 2008, voters passed the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, which the ACLU claims protects workers like Casias. But U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jonker said the law doesn’t mandate that businesses accommodate employees.


The Feb. 1 ruling came after a recent finding by a Michigan magistrate who said neither an employer nor the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer are required to pay for medical marijuana that is reasonably necessary to treat an injured worker.  


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 February 17, 2011August 9, 2018

LinkedIn Referral Policies Could Raise Legal Rift

The recommendations on LinkedIn pages are usually pretty straightforward: current and former business colleagues tout the person’s skills and experience.


But these online testimonials are anything but simple for companies. On one hand, allowing employees to write recommendations for current or former co-workers raises legal risks, especially for financial services firms. On the other hand, muzzling workers might smack of censorship and create resentment.


“Companies attempting to ban employees from writing LinkedIn recommendations are going to appear overly controlling and out of touch,” says Jennifer Benz, founder of San Francisco-based consulting firm Benz Communications. “Aside from being unnecessary and harsh, trying to enforce a policy like that is a poor use of resources.”


The recommendations are likely to grow in importance as LinkedIn profiles become a de facto résumé in the digital era. LinkedIn, a professional networking website where individuals can describe their career experiences and connect with others, has mushroomed over the past several years. Launched in 2003, it now boasts more than 90 million members worldwide.


The site makes it easy to ask for references by providing a template for those requests. “Recommendations help illustrate your achievements, project credibility and show why people enjoy working with you,” LinkedIn states on its site.


The testimonials, however, can trigger trouble for companies, some analysts say. LinkedIn endorsements raise the same legal risks for companies as other references for former employees, labor lawyer Shay Zeemer Hable, from the law firm Bryan Cave, argued in a Workforce Management commentary last year. If a former worker is suing for discrimination, Hable contends, a positive LinkedIn recommendation from a co-worker could harm the company’s case. Praise for a worker fired for poor performance could help that ex-employee argue that the company lied about the reason for termination.


Hable says she has “a number of clients that apply their regular reference policies to LinkedIn, meaning employees are not supposed to write recommendations that may appear to be on behalf of the company for colleagues at the networking site.”


Financial services firms have particular reason to worry about LinkedIn recommendations. A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulation bans certain ads by registered investment advisers, including those that refer “directly or indirectly to any testimonial of any kind concerning the investment adviser.”


The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., which is known as FINRA and oversees securities firms, also has rules related to ads and testimonials that might come into play with LinkedIn recommendations.


A recommendation on LinkedIn merely stating that the writer used the services of an investment adviser likely would pass muster with the SEC, as long as it does not comment positively on the services, says Barry Schwartz, founding partner of ACA Compliance Group, a consulting firm based in Silver Spring, Maryland, that works with financial services companies. Still, Schwartz would like to see clearer SEC guidance on the issue.


SEC spokesman John Heine says that the commission hasn’t issued specific guidance related to the investment advisers’ ad rule and social media. Whether a LinkedIn recommendation violates the law “depends on the facts and circumstances,” he says.


Given the uncertainty, Schwartz says, most financial services companies are prohibiting their financial advisers from publishing LinkedIn recommendations “at least for the time being.”


Among the companies taking this approach is Ameriprise Financial Inc. The Minneapolis-based financial services firm bars employees who are registered with FINRA—mainly financial advisers—from accepting LinkedIn recommendations, says Ameriprise spokeswoman Stacy Housman.


“We expect the social media landscape to continue to evolve rather quickly and regularly review our policies to make sure they are still appropriate for the current environment and aligned with the SEC and FINRA’s guidance,” Housman says.


Companies in other industries also have limited LinkedIn references. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., for example, has a policy prohibiting employees from giving recommendations for current or former co-workers as a representative of the company. But social media guidelines at Warner Bros. allow workers to write LinkedIn recommendations as personal testimonials, says Todd Davis, executive director of worldwide recruitment at the firm, which is a division of New York-based Time Warner Inc.


If employees write a personal recommendation, Warner Bros. advises them to choose their words carefully. “We counsel people to use a great deal of deliberation,” Davis says.


In another sign that social networking practices are outpacing business policies, some organizations have yet to tackle the issue explicitly. Consider, for example, Singapore-based electronics manufacturer Flextronics International. Kristi Oetken, a Flextronics recruiter, has written several LinkedIn recommendations about current or former Flextronics co-workers, and she reads LinkedIn testimonials as she pursues job candidates. Flextronics instructs employees not to give references regarding co-workers or former co-workers over the phone. But Oetken says that the company has no policy about typing out such a peer review on LinkedIn. “At this point, it’s not disallowed,” she says. “It hasn’t been addressed.”


Although Flextronics does not have an official policy, some common-sense guidelines apply, says Tudor Coray, senior manager of national recruiting for a division that provides services to retailers. Employees should stress that the references are from the individual, not the company, and they should not disclose proprietary information, Coray says.


Coray has written LinkedIn recommendations for two former members of her Flextronics team who lost their jobs amid a restructuring last year. It’s common in these uncertain economic times, she says, for people to write unsolicited LinkedIn recommendations as a way to give laid-off colleagues a little boost. “They just want to help,” Coray says.


Besides wrestling with whether and how to restrict LinkedIn recommendations, employers also must determine how meaningful the recommendations are.


The testimonials can reveal a person’s ability to maintain an active professional network, Warner Bros.’ Davis says. On the other hand, he adds, a glowing LinkedIn recommendation does not replace a thorough professional reference check.


Oetken of Flextronics says the testimonials can offer insight into specific projects a job candidate worked on. Additionally, she says, clicking on the names of people providing the recommendations can lead to new prospects. “By following the links you can easily build a pool of individuals to reach out to,” Oetken says. “It is much like following bread crumbs.”


LinkedIn recommendations also can provide valuable intelligence to companies about their employees. Max Drucker, president and CEO of Social Intelligence Corp., which helps companies research candidates and employees on social media sites, says a flurry of new LinkedIn recommendations can signal that the worker is looking for a new job.


“When you see someone accumulating many recommendations quickly, it is often a sign or an indicator they are trying to increase their relevance and persona,” he says.
 


Workforce Management, February 2011, pgs. 21-22 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on February 16, 2011August 9, 2018

Settlement Reached in Firing Over Facebook Post

A settlement in the case involving an employee who was fired for posting negative comments about a supervisor on her Facebook page was made on Feb. 7, the eve of a scheduled hearing.


The National Labor Relations Board’s Hartford, Connecticut, regional office and American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc., worked out an agreement before a hearing regarding Dawnmarie Souza, a union worker for AMR’s New Haven office. She was fired in December 2009 after disagreements between her and her supervisor culminated in Souza’s posting of negative remarks about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page.


The settlement does not set a formal precedent by the NLRB, as the board was not able to make a decision on this case, an NLRB spokeswoman says.


Under the terms of the settlement, AMR agreed to revise its overly broad rules to ensure it does not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that it would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.


Further, the medical transportation company says employee requests for union representation will not be denied in the future and that employees will not be threatened with discipline for requesting union representation, according to an NLRB statement on the settlement.


Allegations involving Souza’s termination were resolved through a separate and private agreement between the employee and the company, the statement says.


A request for comment from Glenwood, Colorado-based AMR was not returned.


The NLRB’s regional office filed the complaint against AMR in late October, alleging that the company illegally terminated and illegally denied union representation to Souza during an investigatory interview, and maintained and enforced an “overly broad” blogging and Internet posting policy.


Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees may discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with co-workers and others, regardless of the forum.


Souza asked that a Teamsters Union Local 443 representative be present during the investigatory interview, which AMR management denied, and Souza was threatened with discipline because of her request, according to the original complaint.


Later that day after the interview, Souza posted a negative remark about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page from her home computer. The posting drew supportive responses from co-workers and led to more negative comments by Souza about her supervisor, according to the complaint.


The NLRB regional office found that Souza’s Facebook postings were a “protected concerted activity,” and that AMR’s blogging and Internet posting policy contained “unlawful provisions, including one that prohibited employees from making disparaging remarks when discussing the company” and another that “prohibited employees from depicting the company in any way over the Internet without company permission.”


Workforce Management Online, February 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on February 16, 2011November 27, 2018

A Workers’ Comp Scandal

Mark Teich, who runs a plumbing company near Union Square in New York that his father started 65 years ago, wanted to save money on the workers’ compensation insurance he is required to carry should any of his 25 employees get injured on the job. His broker mentioned Poughkeepsie-based Compensation Risk Managers, which administered insurance trusts catering to New York small businesses. CRM offered cheap premiums.

“We joined it because my insurance broker at the time said it would be a lot more economical for us,” says Teich, president of M&T Plumbing & Heating Co. “Had I known then what I know now, I never would have gotten involved.”

Over nearly three years, beginning in 2002, Teich paid more than $147,000 in premiums to CRM. But he was dissatisfied with the value he was getting: He had only one injured worker and one claim, for $2,136. He canceled his insurance with CRM and didn’t give the company another thought until last year, when he learned that the state was accusing its executives of fraud.

In a lawsuit, the state alleged that CRM executives enticed new business to maximize their management fees even at the expense of the trusts they were hired to safeguard, and maintained shadowy corporate structures that went unnoticed by the state workers’ compensation board charged with regulating a booming industry.

By the time the board caught on, it was too late. CRM’s eight trusts were insolvent.

Though this was not the first time a trust had gone bankrupt—seven run by other companies went belly-up in 2006 and 2007—the size of the CRM insolvency dwarfed anything that came before it.

Today, the state faces a crisis in its group self-insured workers’ compensation trusts, which have a shortfall of at least $800 million. Most of that deficit is attributable to CRM, whose sudden collapse left business owners feeling duped.

“I think it’s reasonable to expect our government—in exchange for considerable taxes—to protect us from scams and fraud such as that perpetrated by CRM,” says another affected business owner, Jerry Hahn, president of computer furniture maker TBC Consoles Inc. in Edgewood, New York.

Far from protecting the 4,500 New York-based small businesses in the CRM trusts—some 900 of which are located in New York City—the state is holding them responsible.

Teich thought he had washed his hands of CRM. But last year, he got a notice from the state saying he owed $87,000 to cover his share of the liabilities. Hahn’s bill came to $350,000. Business owners were told that if they failed to pay, they would face a 22 percent penalty and a lawsuit filed by the state attorney general’s office seeking to bar them from doing business in the state of New York.

The battle lines were drawn. Threats of countersuits quickly followed. A resolution in the near future is unlikely unless Gov. Andrew Cuomo steps in.

Audits and court filings reviewed by Workforce Management sister publication Crain’s New York Business tell the story of a good idea gone bad, one that led to the boom and bust of an industry and cast a pall over thousands of small businesses whose owners believe they’ve been victimized not once, but twice.

Promise gone sour

When CRM entered the workers’ compensation business in 1999, a total of 6,614 employers participated in group self-insured trusts statewide. The trusts, which have been around for decades, are not insurance in the classic sense. Employers do not pay an insurance company a premium to shoulder risk.

Instead, businesses within similar industries—such as transportation, health care, manufacturing, government, retail and even cemeteries—formed insurance funds out of which they would pay workers’ claims. Outside administrators, such as CRM, are responsible for making sure the companies they let into the trusts have similar workplace safety records. They are also responsible for setting premiums high enough to cover claims.

The trusts held the promise that if businesses could work together to improve safety conditions, they could lower their workers’ compensation costs. The danger, of course, was that the opposite could occur. If injuries increased, their costs would go up. Either way, the firms would all be responsible—a concept known as “joint and several liability,” which would come back to haunt every business that signed on with CRM.

Ripe for conflict

The men who launched CRM were themselves small businessmen enjoying comfortable suburban lives.

President Daniel Hickey Jr. previously worked at Hickey-Finn & Co., his father’s insurance agency in Poughkeepsie, New York. Chief executive Martin Rakoff was already in the insurance trust business. He had launched Consolidated Risk Services in 1996, and Hickey helped supply him with members, in exchange for a commission. In 1999, they teamed up to form CRM.

Like successful companies in any industry, CRM won business by underpricing competitors’ premiums.

For example, Frank Budwey, who owns two supermarkets in the Buffalo area, saved $40,000 in premiums over five years when he joined a CRM-managed trust. CRM earned management fees based on the number of employees in the trusts and the value of premiums. In an unusual twist, however, CRM’s fees were linked not to the premiums that employers paid, but to an industry benchmark. This meant that CRM could offer discounts to companies with poor safety records and heavy claims without affecting its revenue.

Says Christopher Rosetti, an accountant at BST Valuation, Forensic and Litigation Services, which would eventually review CRM’s operations, this practice put the trusts at risk.

“There’s no incentive to make sure worthy candidates join the trust,” Rosetti says.

CRM saw spectacular growth. From 2001 to 2007, the company collected at least $70 million in fees, according to the state’s lawsuit. The company completed an initial public offering on the Nasdaq in December 2005 that valued CRM at $175 million. But its lax membership requirements and the steep discounts it offered eventually meant that as workers got injured on the job, the fund did not have enough money to pay the claims that were projected to mount up.

Store operator Budwey realized that the savings he’d achieved were illusory when he got a letter from CRM in 2007 saying that he owed $17,000 to cover his share of the trust’s costs. The next year, CRM said he needed to pay $80,000.

“That’s when I was made aware that a lot of things didn’t make sense,” Budwey says.

As several independent reviews of CRM’s operations later showed, the company was fraught with conflicts and mismanagement that led to—and obscured—the insolvency of its trusts.

CRM engaged in practices that looked like those of a Ponzi scheme, according to accountants’ reviews. The company took cash paid by employers one year to cover deficits from the previous year. CRM avoided scrutiny by rarely—if ever—holding general membership meetings for trusts, though it was required to by law, and by controlling the trustees charged with overseeing management.

A review conducted in May 2010 by accounting firm Lumsden & McCormick showed that the trustees of the manufacturing industry trust, appointed to act as independent monitors, were handpicked by the very CRM managers they were supposed to oversee.

One of the trustees was Mark Bottini, an owner of CRM. Additionally, some individuals were named as trustees but were never told that they had been appointed.

The state’s lawsuit—in which the word “fraudulent” appears a dozen times—alleges that CRM used another firm owned by Rakoff and Hickey to provide claims management, independent medical evaluation and medical billing services to the trusts. The executives employed yet another company they owned to provide reinsurance to the trusts at above-market rates. CRM also used a brokerage company owned by one of its founders, Daniel Hickey Sr.

The state made annual reviews of whether each trust was adequately funded. But it did so based on the audited financial statements provided by CRM—statements that were based on “questionable data” that CRM gave its actuaries and accountants, a state report on the trusts says. It wasn’t until the workers’ compensation board conducted its own audits that it discovered that the CRM trusts were insolvent.

In 2006, seven years after CRM first showed up on the New York scene, state regulators took over the trusts and began shutting them down. Rakoff left the firm in December of that year, but not before collecting a $3.3 million severance package.

None of CRM’s current or former executives would comment for this story. Nor would representatives from the state’s attorney general’s office or the workers’ compensation board.

State comes calling

Soon after the state took over, it sent letters to members saying that because of joint and several liability, they—not the state—were responsible for making the trusts whole. Hahn’s share came to $40,000; Budwey’s was $88,000.

After the state asked independent auditors to review the bankrupt trusts, however, they concluded that the deficits were much larger than originally thought. What was initially suspected to be a $178 million deficit is now projected at $800 million—as a result of forensic audits conducted on both CRM and non-CRM trusts.

The figure represents the amount that the state will have to come up with to pay the medical claims and lost wages for workers injured on the job between 1999 and 2007, according to actuaries’ estimates. Meanwhile, Hahn’s and Budwey’s debts keep growing; Budwey is now expected to pay close to $400,000.

“We’re struggling with the recession and trying to keep things going, and then to get hit with a $350,000 bill?” Hahn says. “It’s devastating.”

Hahn sent the state $10,000 as a “good faith gesture.” Then he hired a lawyer. He has no plans to pay a penny more.

Meanwhile, the state is using its authority to collect money from solvent trusts. Scores of organizations have responded by shutting down their trusts and suing the state to make sure the trusts’ money is used to pay the claims of their workers.

The crisis has decimated the group-self-insured trusts industry. Today, only about 4,000 employers participate. And while there’s currently enough money to pay workers’ claims, as of last summer, only $33.8 million of the estimated shortfall had been collected.

New York’s missteps

John Giardino, a lawyer for 400 of the small businesses in the CRM trusts, says his clients shouldn’t be targeted by the state because of its inability to oversee an industry that nearly tripled in size in the eight years CRM operated.

“These programs were approved by the state, monitored by the state; the state published reports every year about the adequacy of funding for the trusts,” says Giardino, who is special counsel, Buffalo, at the law firm Phillips Lytle. “They were the regulators. And they failed.”

Giardino says the state made a number of bad decisions after it discovered the insolvencies. The first was revoking CRM’s state insurance license, rather than instituting better management controls. That would have allowed the funds needed for claims payments to keep flowing into the trusts, he notes.

Also, the state waited a year before suing CRM, losing valuable time to recoup money. New York sued for $405 million. But a proposed settlement announced last fall would yield just $41 million, of which only $11 million would be in cash. The company has changed its name to Majestic Insurance, but two men named in the state’s lawsuit remain with the firm.

So far, none of the executives at CRM has been charged with a crime. Hickey Jr. left the company in March 2009 with a severance deal worth $3.3 million, while business owners such as Hahn have been left holding the bill.

They had been told by the state that it will sue them and assess further penalties if they do not agree to pay 50 percdent of their assessments. Legislation proposed by Cuomo would hit the businesses with stop-work orders if they don’t pay. But the state has not yet put a cap on the size of the companies’ liabilities.

“Workers’ comp insurance is mandated and overseen by the state to protect workers and their companies against catastrophic loss,” Hahn says, “not create it.”

Workforce Management Online, February 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on January 28, 2011August 9, 2018

Appeals Court Judges Plan Quick Review of Reform Law Decision

Federal judges in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have agreed to expedite their review of a decision from a district judge in Richmond, Virginia, that struck down the individual insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional.


The decision means the Virginia federal appeals court will render a quick decision as the case winds its way toward what will be its likely final destination: the U.S. Supreme Court. The request for expedited review was filed jointly by the Department of Health and Human Services and Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli II. The case is scheduled to be heard by May.


“Major decisions are already being made and money is already being spent to comply with a law that may not be around two years from now,” Cuccinelli said in a news release. He said he had not yet decided whether to seek permission to bring the case directly to the Supreme Court without an appeal.


An appeal is also pending in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the decision of a federal district judge in Detroit that the law is constitutional. Numerous friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in that case since the appeal was lodged last week, but a briefing schedule has not yet been set.  


Filed by Joe Carlson 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 January 13, 2011August 9, 2018

Courts Ruling on WARN Act Could Benefit Employers

In a decision that could be beneficial to employers, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has ruled that DHL Express (USA) Inc. and its German parent company did not violate the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act when it reached severance agreements with hundreds of unionized drivers.


After a period of layoffs at its Chicago-area plants in December 2008, DHL, a subsidiary of Deutsche Post, offered severance packages to several hundred workers as well as to numerous already laid-off employees. Those accepting the severance were required to sign a waiver releasing the company from liability under any federal, state or local employment law.


Because the workers and former employees were given just a few days to either accept or reject the severance offers, two of the laid-off workers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago alleging that DHL should have provided at least 60 days’ notice prior to the execution of those agreements, as is required under the WARN Act. The WARN Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide at least 60 days’ notice to workers of plant closings or mass layoffs.


Although the district court acknowledged that the DHL workers “had to make a tough choice in the face of daunting economic circumstances,” it concluded that “there was no evidence that they signed the severance agreements involuntarily” or in violation of the WARN Act. In granting summary judgment in favor of DHL, the court also granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Post and terminated the case.


Having lost the first round at the district court level, the workers appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision.


“While we recognize the unenviable positions in which DHL’s Chicagoland workers found themselves, we are unpersuaded by these arguments and cannot conclude on the evidence before us that the workers who accepted the union-negotiated severance packages did so involuntarily,” wrote Judge John Daniel Tinder on behalf of the three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit that reviewed the decision. “The severance agreements … were both negotiated by Local 705 with the workers’ interests in mind, and were written unambiguously in plain English.”


The decision should be helpful to employers in the 7th Circuit, which encompasses Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, because it is the first time that an appellate court has ruled on a WARN Act claim, according to Joshua Ditelberg, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, who represented the employer. “This is the first 7th Circuit case that confirmed that employers can waive WARN Act claims,” he said.


The lawyer representing the employees, Lee Winston, an employment attorney at Winston Cooks in Birmingham, Alabama, did not return phone calls seeking comment.  


Filed by Joanne Wojcik 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 January 12, 2011August 9, 2018

Workplace Discrimination Charges Set Record

A record 99,922 private-sector workplace discrimination charges were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during fiscal 2010, the agency said on Jan. 11.


The number of charges filed in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, was more than the 95,402 record set in fiscal 2008 and was 7.1 percent higher than fiscal 2009, the EEOC said.


All major categories of charges increased.


For the first time, retaliation charges filed under all statutes surpassed race as the most frequently filed charge and comprised 36.3 percent of the total. The 36,258 retaliation charges increased 7.9 percent over the previous year.


Some 35,890 race-related charges were filed, which was 35.9 percent of the total and a 6.9 percent increase over the previous year.


Other charge categories, and their percentage of the total filed, were: sex, 29.1 percent; disability, 25.2 percent; age, 23.3 percent; national origin, 11.3 percent; religion 3.8 percent; Equal Pay Act, 2 percent; and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 0.2 percent.


The EEOC published final regulations to implement Title II of GINA, which prohibits using genetic information in making employment decisions, in the Federal Register in November.


The EEOC said the surge in charges may be because of several factors, including economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, employees’ greater awareness of the law, improvements in the EEOC’s intake practices and consumer service, and greater accessibility to the public.


The EEOC also said it ended fiscal 2010 with 86,338 pending charges, an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year.  


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 January 7, 2011August 9, 2018

Employment Discrimination Settlements Surge

The monetary value of settlements of the top 10 private plaintiff employment discrimination class-action lawsuits paid or entered into in 2010 totaled $346.4 million, which is more than four times the amount in 2009, according to an analysis released Jan. 5.

The largest was the $175 million settlement in Velez et al. vs. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., according to the Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report by Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw.


The 664-page report analyzes 848 decisions rendered against employers in state and federal courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The $346.4 million total for the top 10 in 2010 compares with $84.4 million for the top 10 during 2009.


Velez, which received final approval Nov. 30, 2010, involved allegations that Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis discriminated against 5,600 current and former female sales representatives in pay and promotions.


Seyfarth Shaw Partner Gerald Maatman Jr., who authored the report, said employment discrimination lawsuits “were in the headlines more than any other type of workplace challenge for a company” during 2010, unlike previous years when wage and hour settlements broke records.


The issue is on employees’ minds, “and so the manner with which you comply with the law, your internal systems and the way in which you react in the workplace to complaints of discrimination are very important,” he said.


Meanwhile, wage and hour class actions were the most frequently filed type of workplace class action, according to the report. “This trend also was manifest in more wage and hour class action and collective action decisions by federal and state court judges than any other area of workplace litigation,” according to the report.


“That’s the No. 1 exposure area in corporate America as far as the plaintiffs class action bar is concerned,” Maatman said. Employees who visit plaintiff lawyers are “more likely than not” to be asked what they are paid and probed for potential wage and hour claims, he said.


The top 10 private wage and hour settlements during 2010 totaled $336.5 million, a 7.4 percent decline from 2009.  


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.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 … Page 70 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