Posts Tagged ‘DOL’

The DOL’s recent “clarification” of FMLA rights – why all the hype?

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

If you’re like us, you’ve been bombarded with articles and blog posts and e-mail alerts claiming that a recent Administrator’s Interpretation issued by the Department of Labor has greatly expanded the class of people who are allowed to take FMLA leave to care for a child. These articles, including the DOL’s June 22, 2010 press release, suggest that employees who care for a child as a parent are now entitled FMLA leave even if that employee has no biological or legal relationship to the child – as if that hasn’t already been the case for the last 15 years.

The fact is that since the DOL issued its FMLA regulations in April 1995, it has been clear that individuals who stand in loco parentis (Latin for “in the place of a parent”) to a child are entitled to FMLA leave regardless of any biological or legal relationship to the child. Indeed, the regulations issued in 1995 explicitly define “parent” as “a biological parent or an individual who stands or stood in loco parentis…” and define “son or daughter” as “a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis…” The regulations go on to clarify the meaning of in loco parentis:

Persons who are “in loco parentis“include those with day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child or, in the case of an employee, who had such responsibility for the employee when the employee was a child. A biological or legal relationship is not necessary.

(emphasis added)

So, since 1995, it has been more than clear that a biological or legal relationship to a child was not necessary in order to take FMLA leave for that child. Why the DOL is issuing a press release with the tag line “Interpretation is a win for all families no matter what they look like” is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that, since the current administration has been a large disappointment to the LGBT community who hoped to have seen by now the end of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and the elimination of the Defense of Marriage Act, the DOL is issuing press releases like this one to make it look like the government has actually accomplished something for nontraditional families.

The DOL’s Administrator Opinion did make one change to the FMLA regulations, however – the opinion stated that where the regulations state that in loco parentis individuals include “those with day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child,” this is to be interpreted as including “individuals with day-to-day responsibilities to care for a child” and “individuals with day-to-day responsibilities to financially support a child.” In other words, one individual does not need to both care for and financially support a child in order to stand in loco parentis – doing either will suffice. So perhaps technically the group of people who are entitled FMLA has been expanded a tiny bit, but certainly not as much as all the recent hype suggests, and certainly not enough for the DOL to go around slapping itself on the back and blowing its horn about how much they’re doing for nontraditional families.

Worker Misclassification Legislation Looming in Both Houses of Congress

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

On April 22, both houses of Congress re-introduced legislation designed to crackdown on the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. Entitled The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, the bill will have a significant impact on employers’ current practices. If enacted, employers will be required to keep records relative to their independent contractors, specifically reflecting their status as such. Employers will also be required to provide written notice to all workers of their status as either an employee or as an independent contractor.

Additionally, the legislation would expand the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provision to workers who have been discriminated against because they have sought to be accurately classified. The legislation also imposes tougher penalties of $1,100 per violation for the first offense and up to $5,000 for repeat or willful violations. Furthermore, employers who misclassify workers thereby violating minimum wage and/or maximum hour provisions of the FLSA could end up paying double the amount of liquidated damages. To ensure that workers are made aware of their rights, the bill mandates the creation of an official Department of Labor “employee rights website.” The website could make filing a claim as simple as clicking on a link and filling out a form.

Under the legislation, more cooperative efforts and the sharing of information between the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service are strongly encouraged. While this bill has not yet been passed into law, employers must be cognizant of the continued focus on and the possible ramifications of worker misclassification.

Department of Labor Finally Releases the New Model COBRA Notices

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Several weeks after the COBRA subsidy extension, the DOL has just released new model COBRA notices for employers to use, which can be accessed here.  There are three new model notices in total: the Updated General Notice, the Premium Assistance Extension Notice and the Updated Alternative Notice.

The Updated General Notice:

  • Includes updated information on the subsidy and information required in a COBRA election notice.
  • Must be provided to all qualified beneficiaries, not just covered employees, who have not been provided an election notice and who experience a qualifying event between September 1, 2008 through February 28, 2010, regardless of the type of qualifying event.
  • Must be provided to individuals who experienced a qualifying event that was a termination of employment in December 2009 and who were not eligible for COBRA until January 2010.  As these individuals were likely not provided proper notice, in addition to receiving the Updated General Notice, they must also be given a full 60 days from the date the updated notice is provided to make a COBRA election.

Premium Assistance Election Notice:

  • Includes information about the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 2010’s (DODAA) amendments to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
  • Requires plan administrators to provide this notice to certain individuals who have already been provided a COBRA election notice, but were provided with one that did not include information regarding the DODAA’s amendments to the ARRA.
  • This notice must be provided to individuals who were “assistance eligible” as of October 31, 2009 (unless they are in a transition period as set forth below), and individuals who experienced a termination of employment on or after October 31, 2009 and lost health coverage (unless they were already provided a timely, updated General Notice).  Such notice must be provided by February 17, 2010.
  • Individuals who are in a “transition period” must be given this notice within 60 days of the first day of the transition period.  A “transition period” is defined as the period that begins immediately after the end of the maximum number of months (generally nine) of premium reduction available under the ARRA before it was amended.  An individual is in a transition period only if the premium reduction provisions would continue to apply due to the extension from nine to 15 months and they otherwise remain eligible for the premium reduction.
  • Special note:  To some extent, there is overlap with regard to individuals who are “assistance eligible” and who are in a “transition period.”   This creates a situation where an individual may be entitled to multiple notices.  Providing the Premium Assistance Extension Notice by the earliest date required will satisfy the notice requirement(s).

Updated Alternative Notice:

  • Insurance issuers providing group health insurance must send the Updated Alternative to persons who became eligible for continuation coverage under a state law.