Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On Wednesday the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving religious objections made by corporations to a provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Affordable Care Act”), which requires employers to provide health insurance for employees that covers contraceptives.  The central issue in both cases is whether a secular for-profit corporation may be exempt from complying with the contraception mandate under the Constitution because of the owner’s religious views.

President Obama is not only focused on health care these days.  He is also focused on helping companies keep employees, rather than lay them off, during a tough economic time.  The federal government will actually supplement wages, in certain circumstances, to stop layoffs. In February of 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.  The chief focus of the Act was extending tax cuts for the middle class.  However, the Act also made substantial revisions to the unemployment insurance system.  One of the key revisions was to provide substantial federal funding for the expansion of state short-time compensation (“STC”) programs, which are sometimes referred to as “work sharing” programs.

The EEOC recently settled a national origin discrimination case involving a “restrictive language policy” or “English-only rule.”  EEOC v. Mesa Systems, Inc., 2:11-cv-01201 (D. Utah 2013).  The employer agreed to pay $450,000.00 and to provide a variety of injunctive relief, including training, policy revisions, apologies, notice postings, and reporting to the EEOC.  The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan made it a priority to protect the most “vulnerable workers,” and Commissioner Jacqueline Berrien said the settlement is an important demonstration of a “renewed commitment” to that goal.  And, indeed: this settlement is the latest in a decade-long line of EEOC enforcement actions based on English-only rules.  See, e.g.: $2.44 million settlement with University of Incarnate Word (2001); $700,000 settlement with Premier Operator Services, Inc. (2000).

With the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) and its expansion of the definition of “disability,” some would argue that the focus should no longer be on whether someone meets the definition of a “disability.” The presumption being that it is much easier now to prove someone is “disabled” under the law. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently issued a ruling contracting this assumption.

In a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on November 4, 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the EEOC on the grounds that the agency’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions “purports to preempt the State’s sovereign power to enact and abide by state-law hiring practices.”  In particular, the complaint argues against the EEOC’s prohibition against blanket “no felons” hiring policies.  The Texas AG’s complaint highlights key failures and shortcomings of the EEOC’s recent investigative actions, and provides detailed examples of the “real world” effect of the guidance on the state’s hiring decisions.

As 2013 winds to a close, we take this opportunity to alert you to two significant cases from earlier this year pertaining to the spoliation of social media evidence.  In both of these cases, the plaintiffs – either intentionally or accidentally – destroyed evidence on their social media sites resulting in severe sanctions.  The central takeaway from these cases is that social media evidence – from a preservation standpoint – is identical to physical evidence and, thus, should not be altered, modified, or deleted during the pendency of litigation.

Although the employer shared responsibility (“coverage mandate”) rules under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) have been delayed one year (to 2015), there are a number of other PPACA requirements that will still be going into effect in 2014.  For example, the one-year delay does not apply to –

• The final wellness rules;
• The 90-day waiting period limits;
• The preventive care changes; and
• The new cost sharing limits

Plus, employers will soon need to focus again on the coverage mandate compliance process and the related reporting requirements (the initial reports for which will be due in early 2015).  In the meantime, the government continues to issue regulations and other guidance on a variety of matters involving PPACA’s implementation.