NCCI Presumptions Tracker

Below are the latest updates from NCCI regarding state presumptions:

Illinois: (Past by Both Chambers on 5.22.20) HB 2455 In Part, Provides That There is a Rebuttable Presumption That an Employee’s Contraction of COVID-19 Arises Out of and in the Course of the Employee’s First Responder or Frontline Worker Employment and That the Injury or Occupational Disease Shall Be Rebuttably Presumed to Be Causally Connected to the Hazards or Exposures of the Employee’s First Responder or Frontline Worker Employment

Massachusetts: (In Joint Committee) HB 4739 Creates a Presumption of Relatedness for Essential Workers Suffering From COVID-19

Michigan: (In Senate Committee) SB 928 Relates to Infectious Disease Presumption for Essential Employees During a Declared Emergency

Ohio: (Introduced the Below)

HB 667 Makes COVID-19 Contracted by a Corrections Officer an Occupational Disease   Under the Workers Compensation Law

HB 668 Makes Coronavirus Contracted by a Peace Officer, Firefighter, or     Emergency Medical Worker an Occupational Disease Under the Workers Compensation Law

As a reminder, NCCI provides regular updates regarding presumption activity.  To access the tracker, click here.

Stay Safe,

Team Libertate

 

WCIRB Releases Cost Evaluation of Conclusive COVID-19 Presumption

See below from the WCIRB regarding the projected cost of COVID-19 claims to be filed by ‘Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers’….At the low end, if only 4.8% of California ECI workers file claims related to COVID-19, the cost to the system will be an astounding $2.2B!

—————-

WCIRB Releases Cost Evaluation of Conclusive COVID-19 Presumption

Oakland CA, April 20, 2020 – The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) released its Cost Evaluation of Potential Conclusive COVID-19 Presumption in California Workers’ Compensation. The evaluation was completed in response to an April 8, 2020 request from the California State Assembly Insurance Committee to assess the impact of a conclusive presumption that COVID-19 claims arising from certain front line workers are presumed to be work-related. Specifically, the WCIRB was requested to provide the cost impact of a conclusive COVID-19 presumption for health care workers, firefighters, EMS and rescue employees, front line law enforcement officers and other essential critical infrastructure (ECI) employees.

The WCIRB estimates that the annual cost of COVID-19 claims on ECI workers under a conclusive presumption ranges from $2.2 billion to $33.6 billion with an approximate mid-range estimate of $11.2 billion, or 61 percent of the annual estimated cost of the total workers’ compensation system prior to the impact of the pandemic. The WCIRB noted that in developing this estimate it did not include a provision for non-ECI workers who may file a compensable workers’ compensation COVID-19 claim, nor did it adjust for the COVID-19 claims of ECI workers that may be compensable in the absence of a conclusive presumption.

————

This and other important workers’ compensation topics will be discussed tomorrow during part 2 of NAPEO’s Coronavirus Updates webinar where our very own, Paul Hughes, will share his thoughts.  Click here for registration details.

 

Brief Update on Recent Activities By David Daniel, Florida PEO Lobbyist

Image result for florida

Update on Recent Activities related to COVID-19 from FAPEO –

There is a lot of COVID-19 related activity we have been working on for Florida PEOs as we face these uncertain times.  This email is intended summarize our recent work.

Emergency Orders at DBPR

With the required annual financial reports due to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation we contacted Secretary Beshears and asked that he issue an order delaying their due date.  Secretary Beshears indicated to us would be taken care of.

DBPR Emergency Order 2020 – 01 was issued March 16.  In the order Secretary Beshears suspends and tolls for 30 days any existing renewal deadline for a license, permit registration or certificate.

DBPR Emergency Order 2020 – 03 was issued March 23, 2020.  The order suspends and tolls through May 31, 2020 all time requirements, notice requirements and deadlines for final agency action or applications for permits, licenses, rates and other approvals under any statutes or rules.

Unemployment Compensation

As you can imagine there are reports from DEO of increased filings for unemployment compensation insurance.  While the UC Fund has significant resources available, as we have seen in the last recession, the unemployment compensation trust fund can go from flush to negative in a short amount of time.

It is expected with the dramatic decline in business activity related to the social distancing and businesses closures, employers will be forced to make some tough decisions with their workforce.  As you know, 443.131 F.S allows the Department of Economic Opportunity the ability to not charge an employer’s unemployment compensation contribution rate for a declared national disaster or an disaster of national significance.  Further, 443. 116 F.S. creates the short-time compensation program which allows an employer to reduce work for employees in lieu of layoffs with DEO approval.  We have requested DEO make the decision that this event and the subsequent layoffs which will follow are not chargeable to an employer’s unemployment compensation rate.  Further we have asked that if an employer chooses a short-time compensation arrangement it would also not be chargeable to their UC rate.

To that end, last week Governor DeSantis indicated in a press conference this event would not be charged to an employer’s unemployment compensation rate.  We are awaiting the official announcement from DEO.  There is no word yet on the short-time compensation and will let you know when we hear more from DEO.

Essential Business Sectors under CISA Guidance

The state and the country have been grappling with the impacts of decisions on social distancing, shelter in place orders and mandatory business closures.  Several counties have already issued emergency orders closing non-essential employers including Miami-Dade, Broward, Alachua and Duval counties.  We have asked the Governor’s Office to include professional employer organizations as essential critical infrastructure workers in any statewide emergency order mandating business closure.  At the direction of the Governor’s Office, we have based our request on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency guidance.  (See attached)

While the decision to issue a statewide emergency order closing all non-essential businesses has as not been made to date, our proactive efforts have placed us in the best possible position to remain open.

Additional Readings – Statues Issued

443.131 F.S. – Click here to read more.

443.1116-F.S. – Click here to read more.

DBPR – Emergency Order 2020 – Click here to read more.

CISA Guidance on Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers – Click here to read more. 

State of Florida Emergency Order – Click here to read more.

 

Components of COVID-19 Relief Legislation

Below is a summary of the COVID-19 Relief Package from our friends at FisherBroyles

Components of H.R. 6201, COVID-19 relief legislation Temporary Expansion of Family and Medical Leave

  • H.R. 6201 would require employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave, ten weeks of which would be paid.
  • Leave would be for “qualifying need related to a public health emergency.”
  • Qualifying need is defined as to mean “the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for the son or daughter under 18 years of age of such employee if the school [meaning a primary or secondary school only] or place of care has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to a public health emergency.”
  • A “public health emergency” is then defined to mean “an emergency with respect to COVID-19 declared by a Federal, State, or local authority.”
  • The leave applies to employees who have been employed for at least 30 calendar days, rather than the 12-month period under the current FMLA.
  • The Secretary of Labor has the regulatory authority to exempt employers with fewer than 50 employees if the provision of paid FMLA leave “would jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.”
  • Employers with 25 or more employees would be required to reinstate employees after their FMLA leave period ends.
  • Employers with fewer than 25 employers do not have to reinstate an employee if they are experiencing significant economic hardship.
  • The first 10 days for which an employee takes leave could be unpaid leave, or the employee could choose to substitute any accrued vacation, personal or sick leave (including in certain instances the emergency paid “sick” leave described below).
  • After the initial 10 days, the employer would be required to provide paid leave based on an amount that is not less than two-thirds of an employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise be normally scheduled to work.
  • The bill caps the amount of the paid leave, per employee, to no more than $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate.
  • This provisions would be effective “not later than 15 days after the date of enactment.”

Creation of a Temporary Paid Sick Leave Program

  • H.R. 6201 requires employers to provide full-time employees with 80 hours of certain emergency paid “sick” leave related to the coronavirus (with special rules for part-time employees).
  • The paid sick leave could be used in any of the following circumstances:
    • The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19.
    • The employee has been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19
    • The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.
    • The employee is caring for an individual who
      • Is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or
      • Has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.
    • The employee is caring for a son or daughter where the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions.
    • The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of HHS in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.
  • Full-time employees would be entitled to 80 hours of paid leave
  • Part-time employees are entitled to “a number of hours equal to the number of hours that such employee works, on average, over a 2-week period.”
  • The required paid leave ends with the employee’s next scheduled work shift following the end of the qualifying need.
  • The required sick pay is calculated based on the employee’s regular rate of pay or, if higher, the applicable minimum wage rate.
  • In the case of leaves to care for a family member or child, however, the required sick pay is based on 2/3rds of the regular rate of pay.
  • For part-time employees whose schedule varies from week to week, special rules apply to calculate the average number of hours.
  • The maximum amount of required sick pay per employee is $511 per day and $5,110 in the aggregate.
  • In the case of leaves to care for a family member of child, however, the maximum amount of required sick pay per employee is $200 per day and $2,000 in the aggregate.
  • The bill imposes notice requirements and prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining or discriminating against employees who take paid sick leave.
  • The Secretary of Labor is instructed to provide a model notice within seven days after enactment.
  • An employer is also prohibited from requiring employees to look for or find replacement employees to cover the hours during which the employee is using the paid sick time.
  • Violations are punishable under the FLSA.
  • The paid leave provisions go into effect “not later than 15 days after the date of enactment” and expire on December 31, 2020.

Refundable Tax Credits to Pay for Leave

  • H.R. 6201 provides provide a series of tax credits to those employers subject to expanded FMLA and emergency paid “sick” leave requirements.
  • The employer-related credits, which are refundable, would be applied against the employer portion of Social Security taxes for each quarter equal to the “qualifying” paid leave wages paid by the employer.
  • The tax credits would apply with respect to both the FMLA-expanded paid leave as well as the emergency paid “sick” leave.
  • The amount of the tax credits varies based on the type of leave.

Tax Credit for Expanded FMLA Leave

  • H.R. 6201 would provide employers a refundable tax credit equal to 100 percent of the “qualified family leave wages” that the employer is required to pay for a given quarter under the Expanded FMLA Leave.
  • The amount of the qualified family leave wages that would be taken into account for purposes of the credit per employee is $200 for any day for which the employer pays the employee qualified family leave wages, up to a maximum amount for all calendar quarters of $10,000 per employee.

Tax Credit for Emergency Paid “Sick” Leave

  • H.R. 6201 would provide employers a refundable tax credit equal to 100 percent of “qualified sick leave wages” that the employer is required to pay for a given quarter under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.
  • The amount of qualified sick leave wages for purposes of the credit would vary depending upon the reason for the leave.
  • For employees who must self-isolate, obtain a coronavirus diagnosis or comply with a self-isolation recommendation from a public official or health care provider, the amount of qualified sick leave wages taken into account is capped at $511 per day.
  • The bill also allows for an increase in the amount of the tax credit equal to the amount “of the employer’s qualified health plan expenses as are properly allocable to the qualified family [or sick] leave wages for which such credit is allowed.”
  • The tax credit would apply to wages the employer pays between (1) a date that the Secretary of the Treasury must specify within 15 days after the date of enactment and (2) December 31, 2020.

Free Coronavirus Testing

  • H.R. 6201 would require that group health plans and health insurance issuers of group to cover FDA- approved COVID-19 diagnostic testing products.
  • Cost covered include the items and services furnished during a provider visit (office, telehealth, urgent care and emergency room) to the extent those items and services relate to the furnishing or administration of the testing product or the evaluation of the individual’s need for the testing product.
  • The mandated coverage must be provided without “any cost sharing (including deductibles, copayments and coinsurance) requirements or prior authorization or other medical management requirements.”
  • The requirement to cover COVID-19 testing costs starts from the date of enactment until the Secretary of HHS determines that the public health emergency has expired.

To see COVID-19 information, please visit fisherbroyles.com

Department of Labor Issues Final Rule to Allow Associations and PEOs to Sponsor Retirement Plans

REIT
Final rule defines a PEO as an employer under ERISA and clarifies rules for PEOs to offer retirement benefits

On July 29, 2019, the Department of Labor (the “Department”) issued a final rule to facilitate and expand the availability of multiple employer defined contribution plans (“MEPs”). The final rule provides clarity regarding the types of “bona fide” groups or associations of employers as well as professional employer organizations (“PEOs”) that are permitted to sponsor retirement plans.

NAPEO supports the rule, as it is another step in in formalizing the legal framework for PEOs to provide benefits for their client’s shared employees. This action, along with the passage of the Small Business Efficiency Act contained in the Tax Increase Prevention Act (H.R. 5771, Public Law 113‐295) which created the voluntary IRS PEO Certification Program, demonstrates the federal government’s recognition of the PEO industry and the important role it plays in supporting our nation’s small businesses.

With respect to PEOs, the final rule does two things. First, it states that a “bona fide” PEO is capable of establishing a MEP. The rule then creates a safe harbor criteria for determining whether a PEO that sponsors a MEP is performing essential employment functions.

A copy of the final rule can be found here.

A summary of the final rule can be found here.

A detailed analysis on this issue from the Groom Law Group can be found here.

A recording of a NAPEO-sponsored webinar on this issue can be found here.

A copy of NAPEO’s comments on the proposed rule can be found here.
NAPEO Article can be found:

https://www.napeo.org/advocacy/what-we-advocate/federal-government-affairs/peos-retirement-regulation/dol-meps-finalrule

 

 

Potential Wage and Hour Claims Due to New Overtime Rule

Woman working at desk

This article was originally published on InsuranceJournal.com.

Time is running out for employers to familiarize themselves with new federal rules on overtime pay.

Starting January 1, the threshold for who is entitled to overtime pay — and who is not — changes. It’s the first change since 2004.

The new rule raises the income threshold that employees must reach to $684 per week, or $35,568 per year, to qualify as exempt from overtime. Employers are allowed to count up to 10% (or $3,556.80 per year) in bonuses or commissions towards the threshold.

Workers making less than the threshold are entitled to earn one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours over 40 during a work week.

Failure to properly implement the new regulations could expose employers to wage-and-hour type claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

For some employers, that could mean employment practices liability insurance claims.

That’s one reason Chris Williams is trying to raise awareness. Williams is employment practices liability product manager for Travelers. He is responsible for employment practices underwriting strategy, including policy language, target markets, overall profitability of the book, marketing, and serving as a general resource for underwriters on employment practices.

In a recent talk with Insurance Journal, Williams discussed the overtime rule change and what it means for employers, employees and insurance.

There’s so much else going on in the area of employment practices, the overtime pay issue hasn’t gotten much attention.

“That is a concern because the law’s already fairly complicated for employers to comply with,” Williams said. “Then, anytime you have a change in a complex law, you’re likely to see one, compliance challenges, and two, potential litigation coming out of that.”

Williams said the starting point is understanding the basics of the current rule compared to the new rule that starts in January.

Under the FSLA, employees that satisfy three requirements — they are paid on a salary basis, they are paid more than $23,660 per year, and they perform certain functions considered executive, administrative, or professional duties — are currently not entitled to overtime wages.

“For example, if you’re an executive, you’re a manager in an organization, you’re managing folks, you have the ability to hire, to fire people, and you make more than $23,660 per year, you are not entitled to overtime,” he explained.

Exempt executive, administrative and professional employees include teachers and academic administrators in elementary and secondary schools, outside sales employees and employees in certain technology occupations, according to the Department of Labor. Certain casual, seasonal and farm workers are also exempt from the overtime requirement.

For the new year, while the definitions and exemptions for those doing executive, administrative, professional and other work remain, the key change for employers to be aware of is that the salary threshold is going up from $23,660 to $35,568 per year.

“As a result of that, you’re going to have folks that are now within that pay band that are going to be entitled to overtime that previously weren’t entitled to overtime,” Williams said.

“Employers are going to have to one, figure out who those individuals are. And two, they’re going to have to make sure they’re tracking their time, and if those folks are working more than 40 hours per week, they’re going to have to make sure that they’re compensated on a time-and-a-half basis for that time in excess of 40 hours per week.”

While $35,568 is the threshold and where the primary impact is felt, there is also an upper limit as well. The high threshold under what is called the highly-compensated employee rule is going from $100,000 to $107,432.

“In other words, if you make more than $107,000, you have some administrative or executive functions within the organization, and you’re doing non-manual work, you’re not going to be entitled to overtime,” he explained.

The upper limit rarely is an issue. “We don’t see very much claim activity arising out of those individuals. It’s much more on the lower spectrum,” Williams noted.

In addition to the federal rule, depending on the state they are in, employers may have state laws on overtime pay they must follow as well. California is one such state.

“Employers in those situations are obligated to comply with both the state and the federal law. For example, in California, most of our overtime wage claims that we see pertain to state law as opposed to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” he said.

Williams sees a few potential trouble spots for employers.

“One of the things we see today is employers, and I don’t think a lot if it is malicious, I just think it’s a misunderstanding of what their obligations are, but they may not pay their employees overtime.

“They may not correctly classify individuals as exempt or not exempt, meaning they’re entitled to overtime. They may not track their time correctly.”

Another area is claims for not compensating workers for time they spend putting on their gear to prepare for work. “If you work in a meat processing plant or something like that, you have to put on protective gear, and then you weren’t compensated for that time,” he said.

There are things employers should do to prepare for the new overtime situation, according to Williams.

“Employers will want to go back and make sure that they’ve correctly identified who is now entitled to overtime and are they, in fact, tracking their time and making sure those individuals are compensated correctly.

“It’s probably a good idea, given this change in the law, to review all your employees and make sure that you classify them correctly and you’re tracking their time properly and that you’re compensating them appropriately.”

Williams also noted that some employers may decide to raise the salary of their workers above the threshold of $35,568 to avoid an overtime issue. However, in order to avoid paying overtime for those workers, the employer would need to make sure the worker also qualified for an exemption under professional, administrative or executive.

“In other words, if the employer raised the salary of a worker above $35,568 per year, and the worker did not qualify for one of the exemptions, the worker would still be entitled to overtime,” he said.

Williams recalled that happened in some cases after the Obama Administration in 2016 initiated an even high threshold of $47,000. Some employers increased the pay of some of the workers beyond that threshold. But then the Obama change was struck down in court in September 2017 when a judge ruled that the ceiling was set too high and might apply to some management workers who are supposed to be exempt from overtime pay protections. Business groups and 21 Republican-led states had sued to challenge the 2016 rule.

The Department of Labor estimates that 1.2 million additional workers will be entitled to overtime pay as a result of the increase to the standard salary level, while an additional 101,800 workers will be entitled to overtime pay as a result of the increase under the highly-compensated employee rule.

Williams urges agents to advise their clients to take advantage of resources available to them to be sure they are in compliance— whether that be a human resources department, payroll processor or general counsel. He also recommends the DOL’s website that has information about the final rule.

Williams added that a number of insurance carriers including Travelers also have resources available. “It’s sort of a matter, one, of employers educating themselves, and then, two, taking action on that information,” he said.

Wage-and-Hour Claims

Those caught not in compliance could face wage-and-hour claims. Defense costs only for such claims may be covered under employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) but only for those purchasing a separate endorsement under their EPLI. It’s not part of the traditional EPLI. (Coverage of unpaid wages may be available to large firms with sizable self-retentions but this coverage is not typically available to small and medium firms.)

“A lot of carriers, including Travelers, will provide a sublimit that applies to defense expenses only for wage-and-hour claims. That generally includes issues like failure to pay overtime, misclassifying workers as exempt, potentially misclassifying workers as independent contractors when they’re in fact employees,” Williams explained.

There are certain state statutes, like in California, where employers are obligated to provide rest and meal periods. The separate coverage would include defense expenses for those types of claims as well.

Travelers offers a sublimit up to $250,000. “I think the market’s generally between $100,000 and $250,000, and there may be some outliers beyond that,” he said.

Since it’s been 15 years since the overtime rule was changed, this is in a way a new exposure, one agents may want to explore with clients.

“I think that’s a good idea. We sell this coverage to privately held companies and nonprofits, and we try to be proactive in selling it because it’s an exposure for employers that’s out there,” Williams said.

He noted that these claims are attractive to the plaintiffs’ bar because there is a fee shifting provision in the statute so that if the plaintiff prevails on the claim, they’re entitled to their attorneys’ fees. “You can have cases where the actual recovery amount may not be that significant in terms of the unpaid wages, but the attorney fee is potentially significantly more than that unpaid wage portion,” he said.

Other EPLI Issues

Overtime is hardly the only pressure on employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) these days when workplace issues are in the news on a regular basis.

EPLI provides protection against many kinds of employee lawsuits including claims alleging sexual harassment; discrimination based on age, race, gender or disability; wrongful termination, hiring or promotions; retaliation and wrongful infliction of emotional distress.

According to Williams, there are two areas in particular where EPLI is currently seeing increasing claims activity: sexual harassment and privacy.

“I’ll start off with the sexual harassment, and there’s been an uptick, particularly in severity, on those claims. There’s been an uptick in the frequency of those claims as well. It’s a challenging environment to litigate one of those cases in,” he said.

The second issue is biometric claims, driven by the Illinois biometric information privacy act.

“One of the requirements under that is that if you’re going to use biometric information of your customers or employees, you have to get a signed release from the employee or customer,” he said.

A number of employers have been using fingerprint technology to scan employees in and out and to clock when they’re coming and leaving work. In many cases, they did not get a signed release from the employee. “That’s resulted in class action claims brought against those employers alleging violation of this statute, sort of quasi-invasion-of-privacy claims,” he said.

Other claims areas that are relatively new include websites not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. “The website isn’t compliant if it doesn’t allow the disabled individual full use of that website because it hasn’t been programmed properly,” he said.

Travelers is among the insurers that will provide workplace violence expense reimbursement coverage that reimburses employers for certain expenses in the event of a workplace violence event. The expenses might include counseling, additional security, and services of a public relations firm to help a business through the crisis.

An employment practice claim is not a recommended experience.

“No one’s ever gone through an EPLI claim— which is a tremendously burdensome process in terms of the documents that have to be turned over, all the emails, the personnel files, the deposition the employer has to go through— no one’s gone through that process and ever said, ‘Boy, we’d like to do that again,’” Williams said.

Trump Administration Issues New Rule on Joint Employer Liability

The joint employer saga continues…see below from Insurance Journal regarding the Trump Administration’s announcement yesterday.

The Trump Administration announced a final rule setting forth standards for determining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a rule that has been sought by franchisers and companies that employ contract workers.

The new rule from the Department of Labor, which will become effective in 60 days, is a departure from a legal interpretation adopted by the Obama Administration in 2016 and a 2015 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that expanded joint employment situations and made it easier for workers to sue their employers.

The new DOL rule, while not legally binding, does guide consideration of whether companies are classified as joint employers of workers and thereby can be held responsible for labor violations including requirements on minimum wage and overtime pay. The rule can affect franchising companies, contractors, temporary staffing, cleaning agencies and similar firms.

The issue has been central to several cases involving the chain McDonald’s and whether it can be held liable for alleged labor violations in its franchisees’ restaurants. Last month McDonald’s won a 2-1 victory before the current NLRB with Trump appointees—agreeing to pay $170,000 to settle workers’ claims against its franchisees but also winning a ruling that frees it from direct responsibility as a joint employer.

The Obama administration had backed worker advocacy groups in the litigation against McDonald’s.

The Obama standards for determining whether there is joint employer status themselves departed from long-standing precedent and made it easier for workers to sue their employer.

In its final rule, the Trump DOL provides a four-factor balancing test for determining FLSA joint employer status in situations where an employee performs work for one employer that simultaneously benefits another entity or individual. The balancing test examines whether the potential joint employer:

  • Hires or fires the employee;
  • Supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
  • Determines the employee’s rate and method of payment; and
  • Maintains the employee’s employment records.

A business would not have to meet all of these criteria to be considered a joint employer.

The rule also sets forth when additional factors may be relevant to a determination of FLSA joint employer status and identifies certain business models, contractual agreements with the employer, and business practices that do not make joint employer status more or less likely.

Recent History

In a decision known as Browning-Ferris Industries, the NLRB in August 2015 overturned established precedent for determining whether a joint employer relationship exists under the National Labor Relations Act. Legal guidance adopted by the Obama DOL in 2016 reflected the expansion of joint employer liability cited in the Browning-Ferris ruling. For example, it considered a franchiser a joint employer not only if it exercised direct control of employees’ activities, but also if it had “indirect” or even “potential” control.

The Trump DOL withdrew the Obama guidance in 2017.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, DOL Secretary Eugene Scalia and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said the new rule should clarify the situation affecting these relationships and relieve companies of a potential liability.

“The new rule also gives companies in traditional contracting and franchising relationships confidence that they can demand certain basic standards from suppliers or franchisees—like effective antiharassment policies and compliance with employment laws—without themselves being deemed the employer of the other company’s workers. That will help companies promote fair working conditions without facing unwarranted regulatory costs,” the Trump officials wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The International Franchise Association (IFA) praised the new rule as a “return to a simple, clear, and thoughtful joint employer standard.” IFA has argued that the Obama standard increased lawsuits against employers, cost jobs and sapped the American economy of $33.3 billion per year.

Robert Cresanti, IFA president and CEO, said the four-part test to determine employer status can clarify joint employer status, employer liability, and the roles and responsibilities of each party in a business relationship.

Worker groups have argued that a narrowing of the rule will create an incentive for large employers to outsource more jobs.

Rebecca Dixon, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said the new rule “makes it easier for corporations to cheat their workers and look the other way when workplace violations occur.”

The liberal Economic Policy Institute has said workers could lose $1.3 billion in wages annually under the new rule.

There is more to come on the issue from the Trump Administration. While the DOL standards are not legally binding, the NLRB joint employer rule is. The NLRB is close to finalizing its own rule.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/13/554657.htm

Cadillac Tax and Other Key ACA Taxes Repealed

OVERVIEW
On Dec. 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law a spending bill that prevents a government shutdown and repeals the following three taxes and fees under the Affordable Care Act (ACA):

    • The Cadillac tax on high-cost group health coverage,
      beginning in 2020;
    • The medical devices excise tax, beginning in 2020; and
    • The health insurance providers fee, beginning in 2021.
      The law also extends PCORI fees to fiscal years 2020-2029.

Cadillac Tax
The ACA imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost group health coverage, also known as the “Cadillac tax.” This provision taxes the amount, if any, by which the monthly cost of an employee’s applicable employer-sponsored health coverage exceeds the annual limitation (called the employee’s excess benefit). The tax
amount for each employee’s coverage will be calculated by the employer and paid by the coverage provider.

Although originally intended to take effect in 2013, the Cadillac tax was immediately delayed until 2018 following the ACA’s enactment. A federal budget bill enacted for 2016 further delayed implementation of this tax until 2020, and also:

  • Removed a provision prohibiting the Cadillac tax from being
    deducted as a business expense; and
  • Required a study to be conducted on the age and gender
    adjustment to the annual limit.

Then, a 2018 continuing spending resolution delayed implementation of
the Cadillac tax for an additional two years, until 2022.
There was some indication that these delays would eventually lead to an eventual repeal of the Cadillac tax provision altogether. The Cadillac tax has been a largely unpopular provision since its enactment, and a number of bills have been introduced into Congress to repeal this tax over the past several years.

The 2019 continuing spending resolution fully repeals the Cadillac tax, beginning with the 2020 taxable year.

Health Insurance Providers Fee
Beginning in 2014, the ACA imposed an annual, nondeductible fee on the health insurance sector, allocated across the industry according to market share. This health insurance providers fee, which is treated as an excise tax, is required to be paid by Sept. 30 of each calendar year. The first fees were due Sept. 30, 2014.
The 2016 federal budget suspended collection of the health insurance providers fee for the 2017 calendar year. Thus, health insurance issuers were not required to pay these fees for 2017. However, this moratorium expired at the end of 2017. A 2019 continuing resolution provided an additional one-year moratorium on the health insurance providers fee for the 2019 calendar year, although the fee continued to apply for the 2018 calendar year.

The 2019 continuing spending resolution fully repeals the health insurance providers fee, beginning with the 2021 calendar year. Employers are not directly subject to the health insurance providers fee. However, in many cases, providers of insured plans have been passing the cost of the fee on to the employers sponsoring the coverage. As a result, this repeal may result in significant savings for some employers on their health
insurance rates.

Medical Devices Excise Tax
The ACA also imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on the sales price of certain medical devices, effective beginning in 2013. Generally, the manufacturer or importer of a taxable medical device is responsible for reporting and paying this tax to the IRS. The 2016 federal budget suspended collection of the medical devices tax for two
years, in 2016 and 2017. As a result, this tax did not apply to sales made between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2017. A 2018 continuing resolution extended this moratorium for an additional two years, through the 2019 calendar year. The moratorium is set to expire beginning in 2020.

The 2019 continuing spending resolution fully repeals the medical devices tax, beginning in 2020. Therefore, as a result of both moratoriums and the repeal, the medical devices tax does not apply to any sales made after Jan. 1, 2016.

PCORI Fees
The ACA created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to help patients, clinicians, payers and the public make informed health decisions by advancing comparative effectiveness research. The Institute’s research is funded, in part, by fees paid by health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-insured
health plans. Under the ACA, the PCORI fees were scheduled to apply to policy or plan years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2012, and before Oct. 1, 2019.

The 2019 continuing spending resolution reinstates PCORI fees for the 2020-2029 fiscal years. As a result, specified health insurance policies and applicable self-insured health plans must continue to pay these fees through 2029.

Cadillac, Other Key ACA Taxes Repealed 2020