Health Employment And Labor

labor and employment law for the healthcare industry

The WARN Act Sale of Business Exception: 8th Circuit Rules on Corporate Transactions

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Marc A. Mandelman, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “8th Circuit Rules Parties to Corporate Transactions Cannot Contract Around the WARN Act Sale of Business Exception

Following is an excerpt:

In a rare case interpreting the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act “sale of business” exception, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit recently held in Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 8th Cir., No. 15-1711 (July 5, 2016) that a buyer of a business remained liable under WARN to the seller’s employees to whom the buyer did not make offers of employment, despite provisions in the asset purchase agreement (“APA”) that placed all WARN Act liability on the seller. …

The key takeaway of the Day case for parties to a corporate transaction is that WARN liabilities are governed by statute, and the implications of WARN obligations and the sale of business provision of WARN must be carefully evaluated.  The case highlights that although the sale of business exception may be helpful to buyers in absolving them of WARN obligations to employees who they hire, the application of this important WARN “exception” may also result in the buyer remaining liable for the seller’s failure to provide WARN notice to employees whom the buyer does not offer continued employment, particularly where neither party satisfied the obligation to issue WARN notice or provide the employees with WARN pay in lieu of notice.

Read the full post here.

Are You a Joint-Employer with Your Suppliers? NLRB Examines Corporate Social Responsibility Policies

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Can Your Corporate Social Responsibility Policy Make You a Joint-Employer With Your Suppliers? The NLRB May Find That It Does

Following is an excerpt:

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), which continues to apply an ever expanding standard for determining whether a company that contracts with another business to supply contract labor or services in support of its operations should be treated as a joint employer of the supplier or contractor’s employees, is now considering whether a company’s requirement that its suppliers and contractors comply with its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Policy, which includes minimum standards for the contractor or supplier’s practices with its own employees can support a claim that the customer is a joint employer. …

Employers are well advised to review the full range of their operations and personnel decisions, including their use of contingent and temporaries and personnel supplied by temporary and other staffing agencies to assess their vulnerability to such action and to determine what steps they make take to better position themselves for the challenges that are surely coming.

Read the full post here.

Seventh Circuit: Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Bias

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Linda B. Celauro, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Seventh Circuit Panel Finds That Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Bias.

Following is an excerpt:

Bound by precedent, on July 28, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The panel thereby affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissing the claim of Kimberly Hively, a part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College, that she was denied the opportunity for full-time employment on the basis of her sexual orientation.

The importance of the Seventh Circuit panel’s opinion is not in its precise holding but both (i) the in-depth discussion of Seventh Circuit precedence binding it, the decisions of all of the U.S. Courts of Appeals (except the Eleventh Circuit) that have held similarly, and Congress’s repeated rejection of legislation that would have extended Title VII’s protections to sexual orientation, and (ii) the multifaceted bases for its entreaties to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congress to extend Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to sexual orientation discrimination.

The Seventh Circuit panel highlighted the following reasons as to why the Supreme Court or Congress must consider extending Title VII’s protections to sexual orientation …

Read the full post here.

OSHA Fines Home Health Care Provider for Failing to Protect Employee from Workplace Assault

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment
Denise Dadika

Denise Dadika

In a matter highlighting the importance of workplace violence prevention programs, Epic Health Services, a national home health care provider, was recently issued a citation and fine by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) for failing to protect its employees from the dangers of workplace violence. The fine and citation stemmed from a complaint by one of Epic’s nurses, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by a client while providing services in the client’s home.

After an investigation, OSHA determined that the nurse was subjected to physical and sexual assault. The investigation also revealed that Epic had received numerous reports of verbal, physical and sexual assaults on employees, as well as a report of an employee forced to work in a house in which to domestic violence occurred.  In addition, OSHA concluded that the employer had no system for reporting threats or incidents of violence in the workplace.  For these reasons, OSHA cited the employer for one willful violation for failing to maintain a safe workplace under OSHA’s General Duty Clause.  A willful violation is defined by OSHA as a violation in which the employer either knowingly failed to comply with the legal requirement, purposefully disregarded the requirement or acted with indifference to employee safety.  OSHA also cited the employer for a records violation.  The citations amounted to a $98,000 fine.

OSHA’s findings highlight the importance of a workplace violence prevention program, particularly for home health care workers who are more vulnerable to workplace violence given their uncontrolled work environment. An effective workplace violence prevention program includes:  a well-disseminated policy addressing the prevention of workplace violence; an employee training program; a system for reporting all incidents of workplace violence; management commitment and employee involvement; worksite analysis and hazard identification; corrective action to address any hazards identified; and recordkeeping and program evaluation.  As we have reported in the past, OSHA has continued to stress the need for such programs, particularly in the health care industry.

Sleeping on the Job Disqualifies Residential Counselor from Unemployment

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment
Maxine Neuhauser

Maxine Neuhauser

In an unpublished decision issued July 22, 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that an overnight residential counselor for developmentally disabled adults was properly disqualified from unemployment because of “severe misconduct” after having been found sleeping on the job. In affirming the Division of Unemployment’s denial of benefits, the court noted that this was the employee’s second documented violation “of his employer’s most basic rule: stay awake.” The decision, James MacIsaac v. Board of Review and Center for Innovative Family Achievements, Inc. serves to remind health care employers of the importance of job descriptions and performance documentation, particularly with regard to patient care and safety.

Claimant MacIsaac’s  job description, which he admitted having received, included the requirement to be “alert for … [residents’] needs during the night, including therapeutic intervention and crisis management.” Nine months after his hire, MacIsaac was issued a corrective action notice and final warning for sleeping on the job. Two months later, a co-worker found McIsaac asleep on his shift again and reported it to management. He was fired three days later.

In New Jersey, severe misconduct disqualifying an employee from unemployment benefits includes “repeated violations of an employer’s rule or policy” N.J.S.A. 43:21-5 (b). The Appellate Division has interpreted this criterion “as requiring acts done intentionally, deliberately, and with malice.”

In these circumstance, and relying on the documentation, as well as testimony of McIsaac’s supervisors, the Division of Unemployment, found that McIsaac’s:

behavior by falling asleep during working hours jeopardized the safety and well-being of developmentally disabled individuals [who] were under his care. Hence, the evidence amply supports that the claimant’s conduct by failing to take steps to avoid falling asleep during his shift, was intentional, deliberate and malicious and constitutes severe misconduct.

The Appellate Division agreed.

Rule Implementing ACA’s Nondiscrimination Provisions Goes Into Effect

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment
Nathaniel M. Glasser

Nathaniel M. Glasser

On July 18, 2016, the final rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) went into effect.   Section 1557 prohibits health care providers and other covered entities from refusing to treat individuals or otherwise discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in any health program or activity that receives federal financial assistance or is administered by an executive agency.

While the rule does not apply to employment, it derives many of its standards from existing federal civil rights laws and the federal government’s current interpretations of those laws.  Covered entities (which include, for example, hospitals, health clinics, health insurance programs, community health practices, physician’s practices, and home health care agencies) should be particularly aware of the protections granted to individuals with these protected characteristics:

  • Sex – Under the rule, prohibited sex discrimination includes differential treatment based upon pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping and gender identity. Covered entities should be particularly aware that they must treat individuals consistent with their gender identity; they cannot deny or limit sex-specific health care just because the individual seeking such services identifies as belonging to another gender; and they cannot categorically exclude coverage for health care services related to gender transition.
  • National Origin – Covered entities must take “reasonable steps” – which may include providing language assistance services such as oral language assistance or written translation – to provide “meaningful access” to individuals with limited English proficiency.
  • Disability – Covered entities must take “appropriate steps” to ensure that communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others; make all programs provided through electronic and information technology accessible, unless doing so would impose financial or administrative burdens or fundamentally alter the program; and, in most instances, comply with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design when constructing or altering physical facilities.

Now that the final rule has gone into effect, a covered entity has 90 days to post various notices for beneficiaries, enrollees, applicants, and members of the public.  The primary notice requires the covered entity to state its compliance with Section 1557 and the availability of the various accommodations under the rule.  The Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has made available a sample notice that covers the information required by this notice, but covered entities are advised to work with counsel to ensure they are in compliance with the rule.  In addition, covered entities must post a nondiscrimination statement, and any tagline (i.e., short statement indicating the availability of language assistance services) must be posted in at least the top 15 languages spoken by individuals with limited English proficiency of the relevant state(s) (sample translated resources may be found here).  Again, covered entities are advised to work with counsel to ensure compliance with these notice and posting requirements.

NLRB Multiplies Impact of Expanded Joint Employer Test: Requires Bargaining in Combined Units Across Multiple Employers

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleagues Adam C. Abrahms and Steven M. Swirsky, attorneys at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “NLRB Drops Other Shoe on Temporary/Contract Employee Relationships: Ruling Will Require Bargaining In Combined Units Including Employees of Multiple Employers – Greatly Multiplies Impact of BFI Expanded Joint Employer Test.”

Following is an excerpt:

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced in its 3-1 decision in Miller & Anderson, 364 NLRB #39 (2016) that it will now conduct representation elections and require collective bargaining in single combined units composed of what it refers to as “solely employed employees” and “jointly employed employees,” meaning that two separate employers will be required to join together to bargain over such employees’ terms and conditions of employment.” …

The potential for confusion and uncertainty is enormous. In an attempt to minimize these concerns, the Board majority stated that the so-called user employer’s bargaining obligations will be limited to those of such workers’ terms and conditions that it possesses “the authority to control.”

Read the full post here.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review DOL Home Care Rule

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

On Monday, June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the new U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) requirement that home care providers pay the federal minimum wage and overtime to home care workers.  As we previously discussed, on August 21, 2015, the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. Weil affirmed the validity of the Home Care Final Rule, which eliminated a long-existing prior regulation and barred third-party employers from claiming minimum wage and overtime exemptions for home care workers.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to grant review ends any hope that home care providers had that the implementation of the new regulation might be reversed. Accordingly, all home care providers should make sure that they are paying home care workers at least the federal minimum wage and overtime as well as any additional amounts required under state and local laws. Because Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs typically pay only at a flat hourly rate for home care services, providers will be forced to absorb the costs of any overtime or limit the number of hours home care providers work to avoid overtime costs.

DC OHR Publishes Best Practices Guide Regarding Transgender Workers

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights recently partnered with the National LGBTQ Task Force to publish a resource guide, “Valuing Transgender Applicants & Employees: A Best Practices Guide for Employers” (the “Guide”), designed to support employers in creating workplace and hiring policies that prevent discrimination against transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. The guide is meant to lay the framework for building a culture of inclusion in the workplace that goes beyond legal obligations.

The suggested best practices include ensuring managers and coworkers use the names and pronouns preferred by transgender employees, maintaining the confidentiality of employees’ gender identity, implementing gender-neutral dress codes, providing access to restroom facilities corresponding to employees’ gender identity, and building an environment in which harassment or off-color comments are not tolerated.

The Guide emphasizes communication between employers and their transgender or gender-nonconforming employees and applicants so that the employer may understand what transgender employees believe a safe and inclusive workplace should look like and respond accordingly.  Recognizing that each individual has different needs, employers are encouraged to work with transitioning employees to develop a plan for them to transition in the workplace.  That said, transgender employees are not expected to shoulder the responsibility of educating coworkers or of ensuring their comfort.  Particularly because DC law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression, employers should establish clear rules requiring professional demeanor, prohibiting transphobic and other harassing behavior, and prompting quick responses to any violations.

Following DC regulations, the Guide also instructs employers to provide access to restrooms and other gender-specific facilities consistent with employees’ gender identity or expression. Consistent with guidance from the EEOC and OSHA, transgender employees should never be required to use a separate gender-neutral facility – even if a cisgender employee expresses discomfort about sharing a gendered facility with a transgendered coworker.  In that case, the cisgender employee should be offered the use of a separate facility.

While the Guide has particular applicability for employers that operate in the District of Columbia, all employers should take note, as the recommended best practices are consistent with the way federal agencies are interpreting and enforcing federal law.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Sides with NLRB on Class Action Waivers and Mandatory Arbitration

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Federal Appeals Court Sides with NLRB – Holds Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver Violates Employee Rights and Unenforceable.

Following is an excerpt:

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has now sided with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) in its decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, and found that an employer’s arbitration agreement that it required all of its workers to sign, requiring them to bring any wage and hour claims that they have against the company in individual arbitrations “violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act FAA).” …

The decision of the Seventh Circuit, finding that the Board’s view was not inconsistent with the FAA, sets the ground for continued uncertainty as employers wrestle with the issue.  Clearly, the question is one that is likely to remain open until such time as the Supreme Court agrees to consider the divergent views, or the Board, assuming a new majority appointed by a different President, reevaluates its own position.

Read the full post here.