
The Hartford’s Group Benefits Division is pleased to provide updates on newsworthy legislative and regulatory actions related to group disability and life insurance. Periodically, we’ll also offer more in-depth reports on workplace, workforce and benefit trends.
In the March 2009 edition:
In her first quarter commentary, The Hartford's chief investment strategist offers her perspective on the economic outlook for 2009.
While Washington was fully focused on the economic stimulus package from January through mid-February, the Obama administration is now expected to press for other priorities. During the campaign and transition, President Barack Obama expressed a desire to ease burdens for workers through an expansion of paid leave initiatives (read an Excerpt from The Obama-Biden Plan). The administration would like to provide seed money to encourage states to adopt paid-leave systems. However, fiscal concerns make this priority an immediate challenge. In the meantime, Congress is moving forward with the introduction of some paid leave bills.
The DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy (OEDP) recently announced findings of an extensive survey of employers' actions and attitudes toward employing people with disabilities.
The Federal Legislation Clinic, Georgetown University Law Center, has prepared a "Comparison of the ADA (as construed by the Courts) and the ADA, as Amended." The chart may be helpful for employers seeking a better understanding of recent changes to the Act. Additional information on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, including helpful resources may be found on The Hartford's Center for Ability® page by logging in to The Hartford's Employer View site.
The state of Washington and the city of Milwaukee have delayed moving forward with their respective paid sick leave implementation, while Ohio has removed paid leave as a ballot initiative.
A federal judge doubled a jury's verdict after finding that the employer's in-house counsel's failure to research whether a pregnant worker was covered by the FMLA was evidence of the company's lack of good faith.
Despite three separate proposals to delay implementation of the New Jersey Paid Family Medical Leave mandate, the law became effective on the first day of 2009 (see N.J. FML Law). Employers were required to begin collecting employee payroll taxes needed to fund the program beginning January 1; however, employees may not begin taking paid family leave until July 1. The new law provides employees with up to six weeks of paid time off to bond with a newborn or newly adopted child or care for a sick family member. The maximum benefit in 2009 will be $546 per week.
The Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration has released a bulletin informing insurers that disability income policies issued to Vermont-sitused employers cannot discriminate against persons disabled due to a mental health or substance abuse condition.
Two bills of note have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. On January 9, 2009, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-2) introduced HR 389 to eliminate an "hours of service requirement" for benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In order to qualify, employees would be deemed eligible if they have worked "either as a full-time or part-time employee, for at least 12 months by the employer."
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14) introduced HR 824, the "Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act of 2009" on February 3, 2009. This bill would amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and Title 5, United States Code, to allow employees to "take parental involvement leave to participate in or attend their children's and grandchildren's educational and extracurricular activities."
Under the proposed Maloney legislation, an employee could not exceed four hours of additional leave during any 30-day period or 24 hours of additional leave during any 12-month period. The bill states that these hours would be in addition to any other standard time off. The bill clarifies that leave may be "taken for routine family medical needs and to assist elderly relatives." As proposed, the legislation would apply to those employers with 25 or more employees.
Both bills have been referred to several committees due to overlapping jurisdiction. These bills may be discussed during the House Education and Labor Committee's hearing on "Encouraging Family-Friendly Workplace Policies," which is scheduled for the Workforce Protections Subcommittee on March 3rd. There are no companion bills in the Senate at this time. While neither bill is expected to move swiftly, The Hartford is closely monitoring the actions of the new administration's statements, as they may be in a position to promote these efforts.
A recent DOL news release reported the results of a nationwide survey of 3,797 companies (conducted by CESSI, a division of Axiom Resource Management, Inc.). Among its findings, the study revealed that:
"While in many cases the front door has begun to open for people with disabilities seeking
employment, unfortunately, all too often a glass ceiling still keeps the valuable employees in lower
level positions," commented Neil Romano, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office
of Disability Employment Policy.
(View Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities)
In Brown v. Nutrition Management Services Company, Melissa Brown alleged that her employment with Nutrition Management was terminated because she was pregnant. Nutrition Management's in-house counsel determined that it was okay to terminate Brown because she was a "brand new employee."
Brown worked for New Courtland, which contracted parts of its food service to Nutrition Management. Nutrition Management hired Brown to perform the same job as she did for New Courtland. As such, the court found that Nutrition Management was a "successor employer" under the FMLA and that Brown was eligible for FMLA because her time with New Courtland counted towards her eligibility together with the time she worked at Nutrition Management.
The jury awarded Brown $74,000 in back pay, and the U.S. District Court judge added more than $6,000 in interest. The judge then doubled that figure (for a total judgment of $161,311) because under the FMLA, courts must award liquidated damages unless the defendant can show it acted in good faith.
The judge found there was no evidence of good faith because Nutrition Management was unable to provide any evidence that it, or its in-house counsel, researched the requirements of the FMLA or were otherwise aware of the factors governing whether the FMLA would apply to Brown's request for leave.
Finally, the Judge awarded more than $145,000 in fees to Brown's attorney.
Disability income policies cannot limit or exclude coverage or impose limitations for disabilities resulting from a mental health or substance abuse condition unless the limitation applies to all other disabilities. Insurers issuing policies to employers operating in Vermont may place restrictions on disability benefits, provided that those limitations apply equally to physical and mental conditions.
Existing policies that do not meet the requirements of the legislation must come into compliance on the renewal date following November 1, 2009, but in no event later than November 1, 2012. New policies issued on or after November 1, 2009 must meet the requirements of the legislation.
The Hartford will take appropriate action necessary to meet these requirements for its Vermont-based cases.