Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Once an employer becomes aware of an employee’s disability, the ADA requires the employer to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job.  While the type of reasonable accommodation required can vary greatly depending on an employee’s disability and essential job functions, it was not until recently that a court found that permitting an employee to work in natural light can be a reasonable accommodation.

Group health plan sponsors have an additional date to add to their calendars, thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The new summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) disclosure rules for group health plans go into effect soon. Disclosures that tell participants what their plan covers and what it costs must be provided starting with enrollment periods and plan years that begin after September 22,  2012. Attached is an overview of what you need to know now about the new SBC requirements.

The Supreme Court recently announced the cases for which it has granted certiorari for the 2012-2013 term.  Among these, and now slated to be adjudicated in the nation’s highest court next term, are the appeals of three cases that will surely impact employment litigation.  In these cases, the Court will discuss (1) what the evidentiary standard is in federal courts, post-Dukes,  for class certification, (2) whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims, and (3) what constitutes a “supervisor” for a vicarious liability claim under Title VII.

Is your cafeteria plan ready for the new health care flexible spending account (FSA) employee contribution limit?  Beginning in 2013, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) limits the maximum amount that an employee can elect to contribute to a health care flexible spending account (FSA) to $2,500 per year.  While plan sponsors could, prior to ACA, impose limits on the amount of elective employee contributions to a health care FSA, there was no statutory limit.

Health plan sponsors should be aware of new fees taking effect soon that are imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Here is a quick review of the fees as described in the recent proposed Treasury Regulations.

With all the recent attention in the press and by the Department of Labor on who is a fiduciary and what a fiduciary needs to do, you may wonder if you have waited too long to focus on this issue.  While the March 2012 opinion by the Federal District Court for the Western District of Missouri in Tussey v. ABB, Inc., found that it was too late for the plan fiduciaries for the two ABB Inc. 401(k) plans to fix their mistakes, the opinion should serve as a wake up call to other 401(k) plan fiduciaries to change their fiduciary ways before it is too late for them.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”). In upholding the constitutionality of PPACA, the Court held:

Read More...

In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and unions have placed a growing emphasis on extending the application of labor law into the social media arena.  As part of this initiative, the NLRB has adopted a strong stance against social media policies that it believes pose a threat to employees’ right to engage in protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

On June 18, 2012, in Christopher, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision interpreting the so-called white collar exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and finally resolved the circuit split over whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt as outside salespeople.  This decision is not only a long-awaited victory for the pharmaceutical industry, but also a key win for employers in all industries. In Christopher, the Supreme Court held that pharmaceutical sales reps qualify for the outside salesman exemption and are not entitled to overtime wages. The Court also unanimously rejected the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) attempt at back-door regulation through an amicus brief, delivering a blow to the DOL’s recent enforcement campaign.

The EEOC is appealing the recent decision in EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., et al., Case No. H-11-2442 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2012), which dismissed a complaint filed by the EEOC, and held that “firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.”  The District Court stated that even if the EEOC could prove that Houston Funding had fired an employee because she sought permission to pump breast milk at the office, the agency would not have a Title VII claim because lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.