Is It Time to Update Your Parental Leave Policy?
|
04/23/2019
|
By: Sarah Otto
|
According
to
the
United
States
Department
of
Labor
(DOL),
nine
out
of
10
new
fathers
in
the
United
States
took
some
time
off
work
for
the
birth
or
adoption
of
a
child,
but
the
amount
of
time
that
new
dads
take
off
work
is
generally
very
low.
Seven
out
of
10
fathers
took
10
days
or
less
of
parental
leave.
The
DOL
notes
that
fewer
employers
offer
paid
parental
leave
for
men
than
for
women,
and
fewer
men
report
receiving
paid
parental
leave
than
women.
While
21%
of
women
take
parental
leave,
only
13%
of
men
do
the
same.
Updating
your
parental
leave
policy
to
offer
leave
for
new
dads
could
be
good
for
your
business.
A
recent
study
by
Ernst
&
Young
found
that
83%
of
millennials
would
be
more
likely
to
join
a
company
that
offered
paternity
leave.
Additionally,
the
Council
of
Economic
Advisers
found
that
allowing
more
expansive
parental
leave
improved
an
employer’s
recruitment
and
retention
of
employees
and
also
improved
employee
motivation
and
productivity.
Many
companies
are
taking
note:
Netflix
is
offering
“unlimited”
paternity
leave
for
fathers
and
mothers
during
the
child’s
first
year.
Microsoft
offers
12
weeks
of
paid
leave
for
mothers
and
fathers,
Ford
Motor
Company
offers
eight
weeks
paid
leave,
and
Amazon
gives
all
parents
six
weeks
of
paid
leave.
Ensuring
your
parental
leave
policy
complies
with
the
Equal
Pay
Act,
Title
VII,
and
the
Family
Medical
Continue Reading...
|
|
Three Things Employers Should Know About the New DOL Rule on Association Health Plans
|
07/23/2018
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
U.S.
Department
of
Labor
has
released
a
final
rule
that
describes
the
criteria
for
establishing
a
“bona
fide”
association
health
plan
under
ERISA.
This
rule
implements
an
October
2017
directive
from
President
Trump
to
make
association
plans
easier
to
form
and
available
to
more
employers.
There
is
a
lot
of
detail
in
the
rule
that
is
relevant
to
organizing
and
operating
an
association
health
plan,
but
here
are
three
big-picture
things
employers
should
know
about
the
rule
at
this
early
stage
in
its
existence.
- Don’t
Give
Up
Your
Current
Plan
Just
Yet.
The
DOL
rule
is
intended
to
provide
employers—particularly
smaller
employers—with
additional
options
for
purchasing
health
coverage,
and
the
rule
makes
it
easier
to
use
an
association
structure
to
allow
unrelated
employers
to
jointly
purchase
coverage.
But,
there
are
still
a
lot
of
hoops
to
jump
through
to
get
a
new
association
plan
off
the
ground.
Don’t
expect
to
see
them
popping
up
overnight.
And,
if
a
new
one
does
emerge,
make
sure
you
ask
lots
of
questions
before
signing
up.
Not
all
association
plans
are
created
equal.
Some
are
very
well
managed
and
provide
a
reliable
source
of
coverage
for
employers
and
their
employees.
Others,
not
so
much.
- Sharing
Is
Caring,
But
Do
You
Want
to
Share
Health
Expenses?
One
anticipated
benefit
of
association
plans
is
providing
small
employers
with
an
alternative
to
purchasing
insurance
in
the
small
group
insurance
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Wellness Regulations Survive AARP Challenge
|
01/04/2017
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
A
federal
court
in
Washington,
D.C.
has
declined
to
issue
an
order
that
would
have
halted
implementation
of
the
EEOC’s
wellness
plan
regulations
under
the
ADA
and
GINA.
The
regulations
had
been
challenged
by
AARP
on
the
grounds
that
they
failed
to
adequately
protect
workers’
rights.
However,
the
court
concluded
there
was
no
risk
of
"irreparable
harm"
to
workers
in
allowing
the
regulations
to
remain
on
the
books.
This
means
the
regulations
remain
in
force
and
will
apply
as
scheduled.
The
EEOC’s
regulations
are
generally
applicable
to
wellness
programs
beginning
with
the
2017
plan
year.
The
regulations
limit
the
incentives
that
employers
may
offer
in
connection
with
a
wellness
program
that
involves
a
medical
examination
or
disability-related
inquiry.
Most
wellness
programs
that
involve
a
health
risk
assessment
or
biometric
screening
are
covered.
The
incentive
cannot
exceed
30%
of
the
cost
of
employee-only
coverage
under
the
related
health
plan
--
or
twice
that
amount
in
the
case
of
plans
that
offer
incentives
to
both
employees
and
their
spouses.The
regulations
also
impose
notice
and
confidentiality
requirements,
in
addition
to
limiting
the
amount
of
incentives.
The
EEOC’s
rules
apply
in
addition
to
other
wellness
plan
rules
under
HIPAA
and
the
ACA,
with
sometimes
inconsistent
results.
For
example:
- Under
the
HIPAA
and
ACA
regulations,
there
is
no
limit
on
the
amount
of
the
incentive
that
can
be
offered
in
a
“participation
only”
wellness
program
involving
completion
of
a
health
risk
assessment
and
biometric
screening,
but
the
same
wellness
program
generally
is
subject
to
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Issues Final Wellness Regulations
|
05/21/2016
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
EEOC
has
issued
final
regulations
under
the
ADA
and
GINA
that
address
the
extent
to
which
employers
may
use
incentives
to
encourage
employees
and
their
spouses
to
participate
in
wellness
programs
that
involve
disability-related
inquiries
or
medical
examinations.
Although
the
regulations
allow
limited
incentives,
there
are
a
number
of
conditions
and
restrictions.
And
there
are
some
important
differences
between
the
EEOC's
rules
and
other
rules
governing
wellness
programs,
such
as
guidance
under
HIPAA
and
the
ACA.
Here
are
the
highlights.
What
Wellness
Plans
Are
Covered?
These
regulations
apply
to
any
wellness
plan
that
involves
a
disability-related
inquiry
or
medical
examination.
This
will
include
most
wellness
plans
that
require
completion
of
a
health
risk
assessment
or
biometric
screening.
It
also
includes
tobacco-related
wellness
plans
that
involve
any
type
of
medical
test
to
screen
for
the
presence
of
nicotine,
but
it
does
not
include
tobacco-related
programs
that
merely
ask
an
employee
to
certify
whether
they
use
tobacco
(and
do
not
require
any
other
medical
examinations).
In
an
important
change
from
the
proposed
regulations,
the
final
regulations
apply
to
a
wellness
program
without
regard
to
whether
the
program
is
offered
in
connection
with
a
group
health
plan.
For
example,
an
employer
that
offers
a
cash
reward
to
employees
for
completing
a
health
risk
assessment
or
biometric
screening
may
be
subject
to
the
limitations
under
the
final
regulations.
What
Limits
Apply
to
Wellness
Incentives?
For
a
wellness
plan
covered
by
these
regulations,
the
incentive
offered
to
any
employee
may
not
exceed
30%
of
the
full
cost
Continue Reading...
|
|
HHS Announces Opening of Phase 2 HIPAA Audit Program
|
04/23/2016
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
HHS
Office
of
Civil
Rights
(OCR)
has
announced
the
opening
of
its
"Phase
2"
HIPAA
audit
program.
We
have
been
anticipating
this
program
for
some
time.
It
potentially
affects
all
HIPAA
covered
entities,
including
employer-sponsored
group
health
plans,
as
well
as
business
associates
of
those
covered
entities,
such
as
third-party
administrators
for
self-insured
health
plans.
The
purpose
of
the
audit
program
is
to
"assess
compliance"
with
the
HIPAA
privacy,
security,
and
breach
notification
rules.
Accordingly,
these
audits
will
be
directed
at
a
cross-section
of
HIPAA
covered
entities
and
business
associates,
rather
than
based
on
specific
complaints
or
news
reports.
Covered
entities
and
business
associates
that
are
potential
candidates
for
audit
will
be
contacted
by
email
(check
your
spam
filter!)
and
asked
to
complete
a
pre-audit
questionnaire.
Not
all
covered
entities
and
business
associates
that
go
through
the
pre-audit
process
will
be
selected
for
audit.
But
those
who
fail
to
respond
to
the
pre-audit
questionnaire
will
still
be
included
in
the
potential
audit
pool,
and
it
seems
fair
to
assume
that
a
failure
to
respond
may
increase
OCR's
interest
in
conducting
a
full-scope
audit.
Based
on
the
updated
audit
protocol that
OCR
is
using
to
train
its
auditors,
we
have
a
good
idea
what
OCR
will
be
looking
for
if
it
conducts
an
audit.
In
the
case
of
an
employer-sponsored
group
health
plan,
the
audit
is
likely
to
include
a
review
of
the
following:
- The
plan
document
(to
determine
whether
the
proper
HIPAA plan
language
has
been
adopted)
Continue Reading...
|
|
Supreme Court Limits Health Plan Reimbursement Rights
|
01/25/2016
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
a
self-insured
health
plan
may
not
exercise
reimbursement
rights
against
a
plan
participant
after
settlement
proceeds
recovered
by
the
participant
from
a
third
party
have
been
spent
or
otherwise
“dissipated.”
In
the
case,
the
plan
paid
$120,000
toward
medical
expenses
incurred
by
the
participant
after
he
was
injured
by
a
drunk
driver.
The
participant
later
recovered
a
$500,000
settlement
from
the
drunk
driver.
The
plan
was
entitled
to
seek
reimbursement
of
$120,000
from
the
settlement,
but
it
did
not
take
adequate
steps
to
enforce
its
rights.
By
the
time
the
plan
brought
suit
to
enforce
its
right
to
reimbursement,
the
settlement
proceeds
had
been
paid
to
the
participant
and
were
gone.
The
plan
attempted
to
recover
the
$120,000
from
the
participant,
but
the
court
held
that
the
equitable
remedies
available
under
ERISA
did
not
include
a
right
to
obtain
payment
from
the
participant
after
the
settlement
dollars
were
no
longer
in
an
identifiable
fund.
The
take-away?
A
self-insured
health
plan
with
a
right
to
subrogation
or
reimbursement
must
assert
its
claim
while
the
proceeds
of
a
judgment
or
settlement
are
still
in
an
identifiable
fund,
such
as
the
trust
account
of
the
lawyer
representing
the
participant
in
the
personal-injury
action.
Otherwise,
there
may
be
nothing
left
from
which
to
seek
recovery.
A
copy
of
the
court's
opinion
is
available
here.
|
|
Wellness Program Survives ADA Challenge
|
01/15/2016
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
In
a
closely
watched
case,
a
federal
judge
in
Wisconsin
has
denied
the
EEOC’s
challenge
to
a
wellness
program
maintained
by
Flambeau,
Inc.
The
EEOC
had
sued
the
employer,
alleging
the
wellness
program
violated
the
ADA.
The
wellness
program
required
employees
to
complete
a
health
risk
assessment
and
a
biometric
screening,
but
employees
completing
the
program
didn't
just
receive
a
premium
reduction
or
other
financial
incentive.
They
were
required
to
complete
the
program
as
a
condition
to
obtaining
coverage
under
the
employer’s
group
health
plan.
Employees
that
chose
not
to
participate
in
the
wellness
program
were
not
allowed
to
enroll
in
the
employer's
health
plan.
The
EEOC
alleged
that
the
wellness
program
violated
the
ADA’s
prohibition
against
involuntary
medical
examinations
and
disability-related
inquires.
Although
employees
were
not
required
to
participate
in
the
wellness
program,
the
EEOC
viewed
the
penalty
for
nonparticipation
(loss
of
access
to
the
group
health
plan)
as
too
coercive,
effectively
making
the
wellness
program
an
involuntary
program.
But
the
court
side-stepped
the
question
of
voluntariness
and
concluded
that
a
safe
harbor
under
the
ADA
(which
allows
for
bona
fide
underwriting
activities)
applied
to
the
wellness
program.
Thus,
the
program
did
not
violate
the
ADA
without
regard
to
whether
it
was
voluntary.
The
court's
decision
to
apply
the
ADA's
underwriting
safe
harbor
is
consistent
with
a
2012
federal
appeals
court
decision
(Seff
v.
Broward
County),
but
the
EEOC
has
indicated
it
strongly
agrees
with
that
interpretation
of
the
ADA.
So
we
might
expect
further
sparring
between
the
EEOC
and
employers
who
choose
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Proposes GINA Guidance on Wellness Plan Incentives for Spouses
|
11/02/2015
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
EEOC
has
released
a
proposed
rule,
a
fact
sheet,
and
a
set
of
FAQs
regarding
the
Genetic
Nondiscrimination
Act
(GINA)
and
wellness
plan
incentives
for
spouses
of
employees.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
an
employer
may
offer
an
incentive
as
part
of
a
wellness
plan
for
an
employee’s
spouse
to
provide
information
about
the
spouse’s
current
or
past
health
status,
so
long
as
the
wellness
plan
is
part
of
a
program
that
is
reasonably
designed
to
promote
health
or
prevent
disease.
Some
additional
conditions
must
also
be
satisfied,
including
that
the
total
incentive
for
the
employee
and
the
spouse
must
not
exceed
30%
of
the
total
cost
of
the
group
health
plan
coverage
in
which
the
employee
and
spouse
are
enrolled
and
that
the spouse
provide
a
voluntary,
written
authorization.
This
guidance
is
limited
to
programs
that
provide
incentives
for
spouses
to
provide
information
about
their
current
or
past
health
status.
It
does
not
change
existing
GINA
guidance
that
prohibits
offering
incentives
to
employees,
spouses,
or
their
children
to
provide
their
own
genetic
information,
including
family
medical
history.
These
regulations
are
a
companion
to
regulations
under
the
ADA
proposed
by
the
EEOC
earlier
this
year
relating
to
wellness
plan
incentives
offered
to
employees
in
exchange
for
undergoing
a
disability-related
inquiry
or
medical
examination.
Under
those
regulations,
employers
generally
may
offer
such
incentives,
so
long
as
the
amount
of
the
incentives
are
limited
to
30%
of
the
total
cost
of
employee-only
coverage
under
the
employer's
group
health
plan.
The
ADA
and
GINA
regulations
Continue Reading...
|
|
Supreme Court Invalidates DOMA
|
06/26/2013
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
In
a
closely
watched
and
sharply
divided
opinion
today,
the
Supreme
Court
invalidated
the
federal
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
(DOMA)
and
its
directive
that
only
opposite-sex
spouses
may
be
recognized
as
spouses
for
purposes
of
federal
law.
Although
the
details
and
impact
of
the
decision
are
still
being
parsed
and
evaluated,
the
bottom
line
is
that
same-sex
couples
who
are
recognized
as
validly
married
under
state
law
are
entitled
to
be
recognized
as
spouses
for
purposes
of
federal
law.
Brief
Background.
The
case
involved
a
same-sex
couple,
Edith
Windsor
and
Thea
Spyer,
who
had
been
married
in
Canada
and
whose
marriage
was
recognized
as
valid
under
New
York
law,
where
they
lived.
Ms.
Spyer
died
and
left
her
estate
to
Ms.
Windsor,
who was
required
to
pay
federal
estate
tax
because,
under
DOMA,
she
could
not
rely
on
an
estate
tax
exception
that
allows
for
tax-free
transfers
of
property
between
spouses
at
death.
She
sued
for
a
refund
of
the
taxes,
claiming
DOMA
was
unconstitutional.
The
Court’s
Analysis.
Five
of
the
nine
Supreme
Court
justices
agreed
that
DOMA
was
unconstitutional
because
it
violated
the
equal
protection
rights
of
same-sex
individuals
who
were
recognized
under
state
law
as
validly
married.
The
Court
essentially
said
that
if
a
same-sex
couple
and
an
opposite-sex
couple
are
treated
the
same
under
state
law,
they
are
constitutionally
entitled
to
equal
treatment
under
federal
law.
Implication
for
Employee
Benefit
Plans.
The
case
has
many
implications
for
employee
benefit
plans.
For
health
plans,
qualifying
same-sex
spouses
that
are
covered
under
Continue Reading...
|
|
Should You Let Employees Buy and Sell PTO?
|
06/12/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
School
is
out,
summer
is
upon
us,
and
many
workers
soon
will
be
taking
vacations.
With
visions
of
sandy
beaches,
national
parks,
and
Wally
World
(Chevy
Chase's
destination
in
the
movie
Vacation)
dancing
in
our
heads,
now
is
a
good
time
to
take
stock
of
your
vacation
or
paid
time
off
(PTO)
policy.
More
employers
are
allowing
workers
to
buy
and
sell
vacation
time,
according
to
a
Society
for
Human
Resource
Management
study.
The
study
shows
that
52
percent
of
employers
(up
from
42
percent
in
2009)
now
offer
PTO
plans
that
combine
vacation
time,
sick
leave,
and
personal
days
into
one
comprehensive
plan,
to
give
employees
more
flexibility
in
managing
their
time
off.
Of
these,
almost
20
percent
offered
a
cash-out
option.
And
five
percent
of
all
employers
are
taking
the
more-novel
approach
of
letting
workers
buy
more
vacation
time
through
a
payroll
deduction.
Could
such
a
policy
provide
a
low-cost
perk
to
help
with
employee
recruitment
and
retention,
and
improve
more
morale
and
productivity,
at
your
organization?
Give
it
some
thought.
But
be
sure
to
work
with
an
experienced
employment
lawyer
to
help
develop
such
a
program
before
you
roll
it
out,
to
ensure
you
don’t
run
afoul
of
some
tricky
wage
payment
law
and
tax
law
issues
these
policies
present
(“constructive
receipt”
and
“condition
subsequent”
anyone?).
|
|
IRS Authorizes Leave-Based Donation Programs to Benefit Hurricane Sandy Victims
|
11/08/2012
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
In
new
guidance,
the
IRS
has
provided
tax
relief
for
leave-based
donation
programs
established
to
aid
victims
of
Hurricane
Sandy.
Similar
guidance
was
provided
after
the
September
11,
2001
terrorist
attacks
and
after
Hurricane
Katrina
in
2005.
Under
a
leave-based
donation
program,
an
employer
allows
employees
to
elect
to
forego
paid
leave
time
(e.g.,
vacation,
sick,
or
personal
leave),
and
the
employer
then
donates
the
value
of
the
foregone
leave
to
a
charitable
organization.
The
guidance
clarifies
that
employees
will
not
have
taxable
wage
income
solely
because
they
make,
or
have
the
right
to
make,
an
election
to
donate
leave
under
a
qualifying
leave-based
donation
program.
Employers
are
allowed
a
full
deduction
for
the
donations,
without
regard
to
the
percentage
limitations
on
charitable
contributions.
To
qualify
for
this
treatment,
payments
of
foregone
leave
time
must
be
made:
- To
a
qualifying
charitable
organization.
- For
the
relief
of
victims
of
Hurricane
Sandy.
- Before
January
1,
2014.
Employees
who
elect
to
participate
in
a
leave-based
donation
program
may
not
claim
a
charitable
contribution
deduction
for
the
value
of
the
foregone
leave.
|
|
It's No Joke: Al Franken Backs Bill to Repeal FSA Use-It-or-Lose-It Rule
|
06/08/2012
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
U.S.
House
of
Representatives approved
a
bill late
last
week that
would partially
repeal
the
use-it-or-lose-it
rule
for
flexible
spending
account
plans.
The change
would
allow
for
a
taxable
distribution
of
up
to
$500
in unspent
employee
contributions remaining
at the
end
of
the
plan
year.
Legislative
attention
to
this
somewhat
obscure
provision
of
the
cafeteria-plan
rules
comes
just
days
after
the
IRS
separately
announced
it
was
evaluating
whether
the limitation
should
continue.
The
bill would
also
repeal
the
PPACA
restriction
on
reimbursement
of
over-the-counter drugs
through
health
FSAs
and
HSAs.
The
Senate
has
yet
to
vote,
but
there
appears
to
be
some
bipartisan
support
for
the
bill, primarily
among
senators
--
including
Democrat
Al
Franken
of
Minnesota
--
who
favor
a
separate
provision
that
would
repeal
a
tax
on
medical-device
manufacturers.
|
|
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Defense of Marriage Act
|
06/04/2012
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
A
federal
appeals
court
in
Boston
ruled
late
last
week
that
a
portion
of
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
(DOMA)
is
unconstitutional
because
it
violates
the
rights
of
same-sex
couples
who
are
validly
married
under Massachusetts
law.
At
issue
in
the
case
was
a
provision
of
DOMA that
says
only
opposite-sex
spouses
may
be
recognized
as
spouses
for
purposes
of
federal
law.
This
has
important
implications
for
employee-benefit
plans
because
several
provisions
of
federal
law
grant
spouses
special
rights.
For
example,
spouses
have
survivor
rights
under
retirement
plans,
and
spouses
can
receive
tax-free
coverage
and
have
special-enrollment
and
COBRA
rights
under
group
health
plans.
Under
DOMA,
these
rights
do
not
apply
to
same-sex
spouses,
but
that
could
change
if
DOMA is
struck
down.
The
case
does
not
disturb
existing
state
statutes
and
constitutional
provisions
that
prohibit
the
recognition
of
same-sex
marriages.
But
difficult
questions
may
arise
if
a
same-sex
couple
that
is
validly
married
in
one
state
seeks
to
enforce
rights
under
federal
law
against
an
employer
or
employee-benefit
plan
in
a
state
that
does
not
recognize
same-sex
marriage.
Ultimately,
this
is
an
issue
that
will
be
addressed
by
the
Supreme
Court,
and
now
that
a
federal
appeals
court
has
ruled,
review
by
the
Supreme
Court
could
come
as
early
as
next
year.
|
|
Court Is Now In Session
|
10/03/2011
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
October
is
my
favorite month
of
the
year.
Warm,
sunny
days,
followed
by
cool,
crisp
nights.
Colorful
foliage.
Fall
festivals.
College
football.
Playoff
baseball.
And,
of
course,
the
start
of
another
U.S.
Supreme
Court
session.
The
Supreme
Court
reconvened
today,
the
first
Monday
in
October. There
are
several
employment-law-related
cases
on
the
docket.
Perhaps
the
most-anticipated
case
before
the
Justices
is
the
legal
challenge
to
the
Affordable
Care
Act
(health
care
reform
law).
Another
closely
watched
case
will
address
whether
Arizona’s
tough
immigration
law
is
preempted
by
federal
law.
The
High
Court
will
also
decide
whether
the
“ministerial
exemption”
to
the
ADA
applies
to
a
religious
teacher
at
a
church
school,
and
whether
states
can
be
sued
under
the
FMLA’s
“self-care”
provision
for
failing
to
provide
employees
with
12
weeks
of
unpaid
leave
for
their
own
serious
health
condition.
Kansas
Employment
Law
Blog
will
keep
you
up
to
date
as
these
and
other
cases
affecting
employers
are
decided.
|
|
Health Care Reform 102
|
08/25/2011
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Jason
Lacey, a
Foulston
Siefkin
LLP
partner who
advises employers
in
the
area
of
employee benefits, presented
a
seminar
titled
“Health
Care
Reform
102”
to
HR
professionals
and
business
managers on
August
18 and
August
23
in Wichita. The workshop
explored
in
detail
two
of
the
more-troubling
aspects
of
health
care
reform
law
for
employers:
(1)
the
new
rules
prohibiting
discrimination
in
insured
health
plans,
and
(2)
the
new
play-or-pay
penalties
that
will
impact
many
employers
beginning
in
2014.
The
nondiscrimination
rules
prohibit
employers
with
insured
health
plans
from
discriminating
in
favor
of
highly
compensated
employees
as
to
either
eligibility
or
benefits.
These
rules require employers
that
offer
an
insured
health
plan
to
make
it
broadly
available
to
employees
and
to
provide
all
covered
employees
with
the
same
benefits.
“Every
organization
will
have
at
least
one
highly
compensated
employee
for
purposes
of
these
rules,”
Lacey
said,
"so
employers
cannot
assume
they
are
exempt
from
the
rules
just
because
they
are
small
or
do
not
have
highly
paid
employees."
The
rules
are
technically
effective
now,
although
the
IRS
is
not
enforcing
the
requirements
until
further
guidance
is
provided.
That
guidance
could
be
issued
any
time
and
is
expected
no
later
than
2014.
Once
enforcement
begins,
employers
that
fail
to
comply
will
risk
exposure
to
a
steep
penalty
of
$100
per
day
for
each
individual
who
is discriminated
against.
The
play-or-pay
penalties
that
begin
in
2014
are
the
primary
mechanism
in
the
health
care
reform
law
that
prod
Continue Reading...
|
|
|
Editors
Don Berner, the Labor Law, OSHA, & Immigration Law Guy
Boyd Byers, the General Employment Law Guy
Jason Lacey, the Employee Benefits Guy
Additional Sources

|