Will Congress Extend Premium Assistance for COBRA Benefits Again?

As the law currently provides, the COBRA premium assistance program expires on March 31, 2010.  That is, any employee involuntarily terminated after March 31, 2010, must still be offered COBRA coverage but the employee will not be able to pay only the 35% and have the federal government reimburse the rest through a payroll tax credit.

There is, however, a bill pending in Congress that would extend the COBRA premium assistance program to cover involuntary terminations that occur on or before April 30, 2010.  The bill passed the house but a final vote in the Senate was filibustered and no vote is expected before March 31, 2010.

The Senate is, in fact, in recess and isn't expect to consider the bill until April 12, 2010, so neither employers nor employees will know until mid-month whether the COBRA premium assistance program will apply to involuntary terminations that happen in April 2010.  Should the program be extended, which seems probable, expect it to apply retroactively, to all involuntary terminations during April 2010.

A prior post addressed the COBRA notices employers will need to send out to affected employees.  Expect something similar to be required if the COBRA premium assistance program gets extended in mid-April.

DOL Changes its Position FLSA Exemption for Mortgage Loan Officers

Today, the DOL issued its first wage and hour opinion of the current administration.  The DOL has historically issued a number of opinion letters each year and the absence of any new opinion letters has been puzzling.  The DOL has decided to change how it issues official pronouncements.  In an email notice sent out today, the DOL explained:

In order to provide meaningful and comprehensive guidance and outreach to the broadest number of employers and employees, the Wage and Hour Administrator will issue Administrator Interpretations when determined, in the Administrator’s discretion, that further clarity regarding the proper interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue is appropriate. Administrator Interpretations will set forth a general interpretation of the law and regulations, applicable across-the-board to all those affected by the provision in issue. Guidance in this form will be useful in clarifying the law as it relates to an entire industry, a category of employees, or to all employees. The Wage and Hour Division believes that this will be a much more efficient and productive use of resources than attempting to provide definitive opinion letters in response to fact-specific requests submitted by individuals and organizations, where a slight difference in the assumed facts may result in a different outcome. Requests for opinion letters generally will be responded to by providing references to statutes, regulations, interpretations and cases that are relevant to the specific request but without an analysis of the specific facts presented. In addition, requests for opinion letters will be retained for purposes of the Administrator’s ongoing assessment of what issues might need further interpretive guidance.

(Sorry for the long quote but for some of us, knowing the process is as important as the result.)

The first "Administrator Interpretation" takes the position that the typical duties of a Mortgage Loan Officer does not qualify the employee as being in an administrative exempt position.  In a lengthy, eight page analysis,  the DOL explained that "mortgage loan officers typically have the primary duty of making sales on behalf of their employer; as such, their primary duty is not directly related to the management or general business operations of their employer or their employer’s customers."  

The DOL did not take a position on whether Mortgage Loan Officers might be exempt under a different exemption.  It noted that employers had argued loan officers are exempt as commissioned employees but cautioned that the employer would need to qualify as a "retail or service establishment."

Perhaps what is more interesting about this administrative interpretation is that it "withdraws" (legalese for "rejects") a 2006 DOL ruling which had concluded mortgage loan officers could qualify for the administrative exemption if their primary duties were not "sales."  The difference in positions (between the 2006 and 2010 rulings) seems to be that the 2006 ruling had permitted officers who were making loans to individuals in their personal capacity to qualify as exempt.  The 2010 ruling explained:

work for an employer’s customers does not qualify for the administrative exemption where the customers are individuals seeking advice for their personal needs, such as people seeking mortgages for their homes. Individuals acting in a purely personal capacity do not have “management or general business operations” within the meaning of this exemption. However, if the customer is a business seeking advice about, for example, a mortgage to purchase land for a new manufacturing plant, to buy a building for office space, or to acquire a warehouse for storage of finished goods, the advice regarding such decisions might qualify under the administrative exemption.

Employers who have relied upon the 2006 ruling need to understand that they can no longer rely upon the 2006 ruling to establish that they made a good faith attempt to comply with the FLSA.  That doesn't mean an employer is now liable because they relied in the past on the 2006 ruling.  It simply means that they will have to re-evaluate their position in light of today's ruling.

DOL Releases Updated COBRA Notice For Recovery Act Extension

The DOL has released several model COBRA notices that employers may use when providing notices of the availability of premium reductions and additional election periods for health care continuation coverage.  The notices cover the March 2, 2010 premium assistance extension.

The DOL includes other model forms as well.  These are included in various packages the DOL has created to cover different situations.  The packages include the following disclosures:

• A summary of ARRA’s premium reduction provisions.
• A form to request the premium reduction.
• A form for plans (or issuers) that permit qualified beneficiaries to switch coverage options to use to satisfy ARRA’s requirement to give notice of this option.
• A form for an individual to use to satisfy ARRA’s requirement to notify the plan (or issuer) that the individual is eligible for other group health plan coverage or Medicare.

COBRA Premium Assistance Extended Again

Yesterday, Congress and the President extended COBRA premium assistance again.  The has updated the introduction on the COBRA webpage at http://www.dol.gov/COBRA to reflect the Temporary Extension Act of 2010. Hopefully, the DOL will soon release the new information as the TEA does more than simply extend the premium assistance period for a month.  I add links to the updated the fact sheet, FAQs and other materials when the DOL updates its COBRA webpage.

Religious Practices that Discriminate Because of Gender

Consider the following scenario:

You have recently hired a male employee.  When you are introducing him to his co-workers, an African-American co-worker offered her hand to greet him but he refused to shake hands. The new employee explained that he did not touch women because of his Muslim religion. When a human resources manager spoke with him about the incident, the new employee said that it was the co-worker’s female gender, not her race, which prompted his response.

What do you do?  You have an obligation to accommodate the new employee's religious practices but you also have to make sure that his religious practices do not create a hostile environment for women.

This scenario was presented to the EEOC for an opinion last year.  The EEOC's associate general counsel  responded by letter in an "informal" (non-binding) opinion.  Her answer was to say it depends on what is an undue hardship under the religious discrimination principles of Title VII:

• courts have found, and the Commission has stated, that encroaching on co-workers’ ability to perform their duties or subjecting or threatening to subject co-workers to a hostile work environment “will generally constitute undue hardship.
• a showing of undue hardship requires more than speculation about negative consequences or expressions of discomfort, irritation, or annoyance by co-workers.

What if the newly hired employee is a sales person?  Can the employer consider customer offense in deciding whether the new employee's refusal to shake hands with a woman is an undue hardship?

• The courts also are inclined to find undue hardship if the employee’s religious expression can be perceived by customers as the employer’s own message.

The employer, the EEOC said, should evaluate the actual impact the new employee has.  If he "conveys negativity about women" (or conveys "an intent to demean based on gender") then the employer can take action but if he get along fine with women, they should not.  The same rule would apply to interactions with co-workers.  

When an employer is faced with what we can call the "no win" scenario, there are at least two key points to remember.  

• I have never heard of a court criticizing or punishing an employer for providing appropriate training to its employees.  Bad training, of course, is a different story.
• It is far better to document observations than to make conclusory statements.  If you are like me, and don't well recall details, writing down what you observe ("just the facts") is crucial.  Getting in court and simply saying, to use this scenario as an example, the new guy didn't get along with women because of his religion, is only going to increase the fees you pay your attorney.