Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Legal

Posted on June 14, 2010August 9, 2018

Study Few Discrimination Suits Filed as Class Actions

Most plaintiffs in employment discrimination lawsuits are solo plaintiffs and are likely to receive modest settlements if they receive anything at all, says a study by the Chicago-based American Bar Foundation, a research institute.


Class-action lawsuits, such as the sex discrimination lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees, although widely reported, are extremely rare, according to the study, which is discussed in the June issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies in an article titled “Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States.”


Laura Beth Nielsen, a co-author of the article, said in a statement: “There is a lot of speculation about what kinds of claims make up the bulk of employment discrimination litigation, but these debates are rarely informed by the numbers.


“For example, many commentators claim that class-action lawsuits are quite common. In reality, they make up less than 1 percent of the federal caseload.”


The study, which covers employment discrimination cases filed in federal courts from 1987 to 2003, found that about 19 percent of cases are dismissed, and 50 percent of closed filings involve an early settlement.


Of the cases that do not settle early, plaintiffs lose the motion for summary judgment in 57 percent of the remaining cases, or 18 percent of filings overall, the study said. In the 14 percent of cases that remain active after the disposition of the motion for summary judgment, 57 percent, or 8 percent of filings overall, settle before a trial outcome. In the 6 percent of filings that result in trial outcomes, plaintiffs win 33 percent of the time, or in 2 percent of filings overall.  


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 June 10, 2010August 9, 2018

Senate Amendment Would Extend COBRA Subsidy

Employees laid off from June 1 through November 30 would be eligible for COBRA premium subsidies under a tax bill amendment proposed Wednesday, June 9, by Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania.


“Millions of Americans have been hard hit by the recession and lost their jobs through no fault of their own. If Congress turns its back on them, they will have an even more difficult time making ends meet,” Sen. Casey said at a news briefing.


Casey’s amendment to H.R. 4213 would need approval by the Senate, which is considering amendments to the broader bill.


When the Senate first approved H.R. 4213 in March, the bill included a provision to extend the 15-month, 65 percent federal premium subsidy to employees laid off through year-end. But the House stripped the COBRA subsidy provision and its projected nearly $8 billion cost from the tax measure in May before passing the broader bill and sending the bill back to the Senate.


The revamped tax bill that Senate Democrats unveiled Tuesday, like the House-passed measure, omits an extension of federal COBRA premium subsidies for laid-off employees.


The last congressional extension of the subsidy expired May 31, which means employees involuntarily terminated starting June 1 have not been eligible to receive the subsidy.  


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.

Posted on June 9, 2010August 9, 2018

Senate Tax Bill Omits COBRA Subsidy Extension

Senate Democratic leaders unveiled a revamped tax bill Tuesday, June 8, that, like a House-passed measure, omits an extension of federal COBRA premium subsidies for laid-off employees.


That omission makes it even less likely that lawmakers will again extend the 15-month, 65 percent COBRA premium subsidy, which has expired and is not available to workers who are terminated involuntarily after May 31.


In March, the Senate approved a tax bill, H.R. 4213, extending the subsidy to employees laid off through year-end. But the House in May stripped the COBRA subsidy and its projected $8 billion cost from the measure before passing it and sending the bill back to the Senate.


While Senate Democratic leaders had discussed reducing the extension to November 30, the latest Senate version that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, unveiled Tuesday did not mention the subsidy.


While the tax bill could be amended on the Senate floor to include a shorter extension, legislators have grown more leery of approving measures that would boost the federal deficit, and even a short extension would face an uphill battle, observers say.


The Senate measure also, like the House bill, would give employers more time to fund their pension plans. 


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.

Posted on June 8, 2010August 9, 2018

Groups Sue Feds Over Anti-Staffing Rule

The TechServe Alliance and others filed a lawsuit Tuesday, June 8, against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.


The suit targets a USCIS rule that information technology staffing firms are not “U.S. employers” and therefore aren’t eligible to bring in tech workers on H-1B visas.


“USCIS’ actions are a thinly veiled attack on the IT staffing industry and its business model,” said TechServe Alliance CEO Mark Roberts.


In January, a document called the Neufeld Memo reversed previous USCIS policy and determined that IT staffing firms are not “U.S. employers” allegedly because they don’t exercise control over their consultants. The memo is in contrast to other areas of law recognizing an employer-employee relationship between staffing firms and temporary workers, according to the TechServe Alliance.


The USCIS has been denying H-1B visa petitions on the basis of the memo, the TechServe Alliance reported. Requests for new H-1B visas and requests for renewals are affected.


The suit alleges that the government improperly changed long-standing policy that allowed IT staffing firms to obtain H-1B visas on the same basis as other companies. It seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the USCIS from enforcing the rule.


In addition, the lawsuit says the USCIS didn’t follow the proper notice-and-comment rulemaking process for the rule, didn’t conduct required analysis of the rule’s impact on small entities, that the USCIS exceed its regulatory authority and that the rule is not authorized by law.


The suit also names Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas as defendants.


Roberts said the TechServe Alliance tried to reach out to the USCIS prior to the lawsuit without any luck, and at one point USCIS officials canceled a meeting with them.


“There’s just no indication they are going to rescind this policy without this action,” Roberts said.


The USCIS held two listening sessions regarding the rule this year, but both sessions took place only after the new policy had taken effect.


Joining the TechServe Alliance in the lawsuit as plaintiffs are the American Staffing Association and three IT staffing firms—Broadgate Inc., Logic Planet Inc. and DVR Softek Inc.


H-1B visas are used to bring in workers with college degrees and special skills.Messages were left at the USCIS’ national press office, but calls for comment were not returned. 


Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company 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 June 7, 2010August 9, 2018

Employment Agency Owners in Georgia Indicted

Several employment agency and restaurant owners in Georgia were indicted on suspicion of conspiring to induce undocumented workers to enter and remain in the United States, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced last week.


The employment agencies—New Fuzhou, Zhong Mei and Lucky—allegedly placed the workers in mainly restaurant jobs in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Mississippi and Georgia, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.


The employment agencies were based in Chamblee, Georgia, and owned by Chun Yan Lin, 44, of Chamblee; Ai Lin Fu, 40, of Norcross, Georgia; and Pili Chen, 55, of Tucker, Georgia, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Another person arrested Thursday, June 3, Chunbiao Xu, 33, of Norcross, faces the same charges as the employment agency owners.


Others named in the indictment were restaurant owners who allegedly used the undocumented aliens, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The restaurant owners include Xiang Mei Ke, 32, of Duluth, Georgia, and Jing Xing Jiang, 42, of Lawrenceville, Georgia. Two other restaurant owners were also arrested Thursday, including Liang Feng Chen, 32, of Duluth, and Sau Ting Cheng, 41, of Duluth, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.


“These defendants allegedly provided jobs that frequently exploited the workers by subjecting them to long shifts, six days a week, often with substandard pay and living conditions,” said U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates. “On top of that, the defendants took large deductions from the workers’ pay to reimburse themselves for the costs of the employment agencies’ illegal services.”


The conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.


Thirty-nine individuals were also arrested administratively in this case, and are being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement pending immigration removal proceedings. 


Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company 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 June 3, 2010August 9, 2018

Obama Administration Dont Review San Francisco Health Care Law

The Obama administration is urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to review a 2008 appeals court ruling that upheld San Francisco’s controversial health care spending law.


The San Francisco law, which took effect in 2008, requires companies with at least 100 employees to spend at least $1.96 per hour per covered employee on health care, while employers with 20 to 99 employees must spend at least $1.31 an hour.


The spending requirement can be satisfied in various ways, including payment of employees’ health insurance premiums and contributions to health savings accounts and health reimbursement arrangements.


Last year, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department for its opinion on whether the high court should review the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision. At the time the case was before the 9th Circuit, the Bush administration said the 2006 law violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state and local laws and rules that relate to employee benefit plans.


But in a brief filed last week by acting Justice Department Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal and other attorneys at the Justice and Labor departments, the Obama administration said the Labor Department began to “re-examine” its views after the appeals court ruling.


The brief noted that since the 2008 ruling, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform legislation. The health care reform law “significantly reduces the potential that state or local governments will choose to enact health care programs” like San Francisco’s and “may also affect the question whether such programs are pre-empted by federal law,” the brief said.


Just as the Labor Department decided that regulatory action on the pre-emption issue is premature, the Supreme Court’s “review of the issue is not warranted at this time,” the brief said.


The San Francisco law, challenged by a restaurant trade association, has attracted national attention from employer groups who feared that if the law is allowed to stand, it would lead other cities and states to pass health care spending measures and result in multistate employers having to comply with a hodgepodge of requirements.


But the interest of states and cities in such approaches has chilled since the federal health care reform law, which includes programs that will provide subsidized health coverage to the lower-income uninsured.  


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.

Posted on May 24, 2010August 9, 2018

Bill Proposes Wage Floor on New York City Projects

A dispute over wages that derailed the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx late last year is set to spread citywide: A bill to be introduced in the New York City Council on Tuesday, May 25, would mandate wages of at least $10 an hour, plus benefits, for all jobs created by city-subsidized projects slated.


The bill’s introduction will kick off a citywide push by a coalition of labor and community groups, spearheaded by the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, aimed at pressuring elected officials to ensure that city tax breaks create jobs paying nearly 40 percent more than the state’s minimum wage of $7.25.


If the Kingsbridge Armory battle is any indication—elected leaders in the Bronx and the City Council ultimately squashed a project that would have yielded 2,200 jobs—the bill will be met with a frosty reception by the Bloomberg administration. It repeatedly argued that transforming the empty armory into a retail mall wouldn’t be economically viable if the mandate for what proponents call a “living wage” was attached.


With proponents of the new living wage bill seeking to cover all jobs created across the entire city via subsidized projects, the stakes will now be higher.


The Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, which is expected to be unveiled by council members Oliver Koppel and Annabel Palma, both Democrats from the Bronx, at the behest of their borough’s president, Ruben Diaz Jr., would require developers of a project that receives more than $100,000 in city subsidies—such as bond financing, tax abatements or infrastructure improvements—to guarantee a minimum wage of $10 an hour plus benefits, or $11.50 without benefits. The salary would be indexed to inflation.


Filed by Daniel Massey of Crain’s New York Business, 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 May 24, 2010August 9, 2018

Reform Law Could Extend Coverage to 13.7 Million Young Adults, Report Says

As many as 13.7 million uninsured young adults could qualify for health coverage under several provisions of the health care reform law, which would alleviate medical debt for this age group, according to the Commonwealth Fund.


Health insurers are required to extend dependent coverage to people up to age 26 for all individual and group policies, starting this September, though many insurers have already begun offering this benefit. This provision could cover 1.2 million young adults next year, of whom 650,000 are uninsured and 550,000 have individual coverage, according to the report.


Expanded Medicaid eligibility, starting in 2014 under the health reform law, could provide coverage for up to 7.1 million uninsured young adults, the Commonwealth Fund said. Also that year, insurance exchanges and premium subsidies could help more young adults gain coverage, the report said.


An end to the practice of gender rating, under the reform law, could help young women get affordable coverage, according to the fund.


“The affordability issue is significant for this age group,” said Sara Collins, vice president for affordable health insurance for the Commonwealth Fund.


Some 76 percent of uninsured young adults went without needed medical care because of costs last year, and about 60 percent of uninsured in this age group had trouble paying medical bills, according to a national phone survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund in May and June 2009 of about 2,000 young adults nationwide.


By Rebecca Vesely 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 May 18, 2010August 9, 2018

What Employers Need to Know About Terminating Foreign Workers

With the unemployment rate in the U.S. reaching a 16-year high in 2009, reductions in workforce have become a reality in nearly every industry. During this era of corporate downsizing, human resources professionals are required to be agile and expert at managing a wide range of issues. Among the most sensitive of these matters are the consequences of terminating foreign workers and the affirmative obligations of employers under federal regulations. The following article will assist human resources professionals in identifying issues that require compliance with federal regulations of the Department of Labor and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The article also addresses the consequences of termination for the foreign worker.


Overview
For immigration purposes, a layoff is defined as any involuntary separation of an employee without cause or prejudice. Terminating a foreign worker during a corporate downsizing has an immediate impact on the worker’s visa status as well as on his dependents’ status. Specifically, a foreign worker sponsored by an employer for an employment-based visa is required to maintain his immigration status by rendering services for compensation. The day the foreign worker stops rendering services for the employer is the day he stops maintaining his status.


It is important to note that an employer’s severance package does not maintain the foreign worker’s lawful status in the United States. There is no “grace period” for a foreign worker to remain in the U.S. after he has been laid off. The foreign worker must act quickly to maintain his legal status while he is in the process of either looking for another job or wrapping up his affairs prior to departing the country. It is therefore advisable for a laid-off foreign worker to seek legal counsel immediately to determine whether filing an immigration petition with USCIS to change his and his family members’ immigration status to that of a visitor is the best course of action. By changing to visitor status, the foreign worker will be given the opportunity to remain in the U.S. to wrap up his affairs, including selling property and closing bank accounts. Finally, for a foreign worker who is the beneficiary of a pending green card application, the legal issues can become even more complex.


Foreign workers on temporary employment visas


H-1B Specialty Occupation Visa:
An employer may hire a highly skilled professional worker on an H-1B specialty occupation visa for up to six years. The H-1B classification requires the employer to make a number of attestations to the Department of Labor and USCIS regarding the number of hours the foreign worker will render services as well as the salary that the foreign worker will be paid. These attestations are made in the labor condition application. In a corporate downsizing, any changes to these terms of employment, such as a reduction in hours, a pay cut or a termination, require that the employer notify USCIS. Employers who do not comply with these statutory requirements may be liable for penalties for noncompliance.


The H-1B regulations also require the employer to offer the foreign worker the reasonable cost of return transportation to his home country. The employer is not required, however, to pay for the cost of returning family members and their belongings to their home country.


O-1 Extraordinary Ability:
Employers that hire a foreign worker in O-1 visa classification and then terminate that worker are jointly and severally liable for the reasonable transportation costs of the worker’s return trip home.


TN (Treaty NAFTA) and L1 Intracompany Transferees:
The TN classification is an employer-sponsored visa for Mexican and Canadian nationals to enter the U.S. to work in specific professional positions outlined in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The L-1 visa classification is reserved for foreign workers who have transferred to the U.S. to work for the parent, subsidiary, branch or affiliate of the international company they worked for outside the United States.


Upon the termination of a TN or L-1 foreign worker, there is no affirmative regulatory requirement for the employer to notify USCIS or pay the cost of return transportation to the foreign worker’s home country.


Green card applications
Since foreign workers are employed on temporary visas that are valid for a finite period, employers seeking to retain foreign talent often sponsor them for green cards. Upon receiving a green card, a foreign worker becomes a lawful permanent resident with the legal right to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely.


Employment-sponsored green card applications are prospective offers of employment. More specifically, this means that at the time the green card application is approved by USCIS, the employer must employ the foreign national in the job identified in the application. Obtaining a green card through employer sponsorship can take many years—in some cases, upwards of eight years—and typically involves filing applications with the Department of Labor and USCIS. The consequences of terminating a foreign worker with a pending green card application can present a host of issues that may vary depending upon the status of the application.


There are employment-based green card applications in which foreign workers may sponsor themselves, including the Extraordinary Ability and National Interest Waiver classifications. In these instances, a foreign worker’s application is not affected by termination. Rather, the applications require evidence of a job offer in the field of expertise upon the approval of a green card application.


Labor certification PERM applications
Most foreign workers are sponsored for green cards via labor certification applications known as PERM. In a PERM application the employer is required to demonstrate that it tested the U.S. job market and was unable to find a minimally qualified U.S. worker to fill the position. PERM applications are employer-specific and cannot be transferred to another employer by a terminated foreign worker. Upon terminating a foreign worker who is the beneficiary of a pending or approved PERM application, the employer is not permitted to substitute another foreign worker into a pending or approved PERM application. Upon termination of the foreign worker, the employer may withdraw the PERM application.


Immigration visa petitions
Upon the Labor Department’s approval of a PERM application, the employer proceeds to USCIS and files an immigrant visa petition (Form I-140). In this second step of the process, the employer attests in the immigrant visa petition that it intends to offer the foreign worker the position and wage cited in the PERM application and that the foreign worker possesses the qualifications set forth in the application. If the foreign worker is terminated while an immigrant visa petition is pending or after it is approved, the employer may withdraw the petition.

Adjustment of status
The third step in the green card process requires the foreign worker to file an adjustment of status (Form I-485) application with USCIS. Unlike the PERM application and the immigrant visa petition, the adjustment of status application is the foreign worker’s application before USCIS for permanent residence. If the foreign worker is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition (Form I-140) and his adjustment of status (Form I485) application has been pending more than 180 days, the foreign worker is eligible to retain his green card application and “port” it to another employer. This portability provision allows foreign workers to transfer their green card applications to new employers as long as they continue to be employed in the same or similar occupation cited in the PERM application. Green card applications that are portable require no further legal obligations of the sponsoring employer. To demonstrate to the USCIS that the foreign worker meets the portability requirements, the employer may be asked to provide copies of the approved labor certification application and the immigrant visa petition approval notice.


Conclusion
In this era of corporate downsizing, the ramifications of terminating a foreign worker can be particularly challenging for all parties involved. Employers must be compliant with federal regulations and foreign workers must act quickly to maintain lawful immigration status. Since the facts of each situation can present complex legal and timing issues, it is advisable to work with competent legal counsel throughout the separation process.


Workforce Management Online, May 2010 — Register Now!


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.

Posted on April 23, 2010August 9, 2018

New Federal Bill Targets Misclassification

A new federal bill to get tough on companies that misclassify employees as independent contractors was introduced Thursday, April 22, by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California.


The Employee Misclassification and Prevention Act would require employers to keep records on the status of each worker and increase penalties on employers that misclassify workers, according to Sherrod’s office. It would also create an employee rights Web site to inform workers about their rights and would create protections for workers discriminated against because they sought accurate classification.


The bill also would require states to conduct audits to identify misclassification, and to strengthen their own penalties for misclassification. In addition, the bill would allow the Department of Labor and IRS to refer incidents of misclassification to each other and to direct states.


Also, the Department of Labor would be directed to conduct targeted audits of industries that frequently misclassify workers.


Brown cited a study by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office that the state loses at least $160 million a year because of worker misclassification.


Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis lauded the bill, and said her department is already addressing the issue of misclassification.


“The Department of Labor is working with the vice president’s Middle Class Task Force and the Department of Treasury on a multi-agency initiative to develop strategies to address this issue,” Solis said in a release. “The administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes $25 million for the Department of Labor as part of this initiative, including $12 million for increased enforcement of wage and overtime laws in cases where employees have been misclassified.


“The Wage and Hour Division is currently considering how to best target its FY 2011 enforcement efforts and is emphasizing misclassification in its ongoing FY 2010 enforcement strategy.”  


Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company 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 59 Page 60 Page 61 … 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