admin, Page 7 Author

If there’s no way your firm will be able to get everything in order in time to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) reporting deadlines, don’t panic. You may not have to.  

During a recent conference call, an IRS spokesperson reminded employers that there’s a 30-day reprieve from the ACA reporting requirements available.

That ACA extension applies to both the returns firms must file with the IRS as well as the form they must distribute to employees and applies to:

• Form 1094-B
• Form 1094-C
• Form 1095-B, and
• Form 1095-C.

In order to take advantage of the extension, employers must use Form 8809 (Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns) and submit it by the reporting deadline. If that form seems familiar, that’s because it’s the same form used to request an extension for filing W-2s and 1099s.

But that’s not all.

The 30-day extension can be extended even further in certain situations. According to the instructions on Form 8809, an additional 30-day extension may be provided if the request for an additional extension is filed before the expiration of the original extension.

Employers shouldn’t bank on getting the additional extension, however. The IRS makes it clear that “requests for additional time are granted only where it is shown that extenuating circumstances prevented filing by the date granted by the first request.”

Key deadlines

As employers know, the ACA reporting requirements can be broken down into two categories:

• the forms you need provide employees by Feb. 1, 2016 (Form 1095-C for insured plans), and
• the forms you need to get to the IRS by Feb. 29, 2016(Form 1094-C for insured plans).

And if your company will be filing more than 250 or more returns for 2016, the IRS requires you to do it electronically.

But you do get an extra month to get those forms to the feds – that deadline is March 31, 2016.

Admit it. You can’t get enough of those weird and warped statements applicants sometimes include in their resumes. Guess what? We’ve got another batch.  

This offering comes courtesy of Job Mob, which curated these astonishing entries from several different websites, including:

• Resume Hell
• CareerBuilder
• Washington Post
• Resume Power
• Hot Jobs, and
• Robert Half.

Job Mob’s collection contains about a gazillion listings, Here are our 25 favorites (in their unedited form):

1. “Skills: Strong Work Ethic, Attention to Detail, Team Player, Self Motivated, Attention to Detail”
2. “I’m intrested to here more about that. I’m working today in a furniture factory as a drawer”
3. Hobbies: “getting drunk everynight down by the water, playing my guitar and smoking pot”
4. Experience: “Stalking, shipping & receiving”
5. “I am great with the pubic”
6. “Consistently tanked as top sales producer for new accounts”
7. “Planned new corporate facility at $3 million over budget”
8. “I am a wedge with a sponge taped to it. My purpose is to wedge myself into someone’s door to absorb as much as possible”
9. “Finished eighth in my class of ten”
10. “Am a perfectionist and rarely if if ever forget details”
11. “Reason for leaving last job: maturity leave”
12. Job Duties: “Answer phones, file papers, respond to customer e-mails, take odors”
13. Skills: “I can type without looking at thekeyboard”
14. Experience: “Chapter president, 1887-1992”
15. Languages: “Speak English and Spinach”
16. Qualifications: “Twin sister has accounting degree”
17. Accomplishments: “Brought in a balloon artist to entertain the team”
18. Application: How large was the department you worked in with your last company? “A: 3 stories”
19. Cover letter: “Experienced in all faucets of accounting”
20. “Marital status: often. Children: various”
21. “I am loyal to my employer at all costs. Please feel free to respond to my resume on my office voice mail”
22. “I have an excellent track record, although I am not a horse”
23. “Failed bar exam with relatively high grades”
24. Candidate’s hobbies included sitting on the levee at night watching alligators
25. “It’s best for employers that I not work with people”

Can you top these? Send ’em along.

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) just issued proposed nondiscrimination rules that would be applied under the health reform law. 

After reading a press release titled something to the effect of “New ACA nondiscrimination rules issued,” we were reminded of the scene from Star Wars: A New Hope in which Obi-Wan Kenobi plays a Jedi mind trick on a stormtrooper and says, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”

Why, of all things, did that pop into our head? Because, in fact, these aren’t the nondiscrimination rules we’re looking for.

Still waiting …

As you’ll likely recall, when the ACA was passed, the feds said it would subject group health plans to nondiscrimination rules similar to those that currently apply to self-insured group health plans. The rules would prevent health plans from discriminating against highly compensated employees by offering them benefits not open to their lesser-paid counterparts.

The problem is, the feds said the rules wouldn’t apply until official guidance had been released about them. So feds kept employers waiting and searching for the guidance. It was then expected to finally be released in 2014, but it was delayed due to some lingering questions IRS officials had.

And so we waited. Then, behold, nearly two years later “New ACA nondiscrimination rules issued.” But much like the lowly stormtrooper, we’ve been tricked.

What’s in the new rules

In a nutshell, the new HHS proposed rules look to snuff out all forms of race, sex, color, national origin, age and/or disability discrimination in the health insurance marketplace — a noble endeavor, but not the one we were looking for.

While some of these forms of discrimination had already been banned under the ACA, the new rules further clarify and strengthen protections for individuals.

For example, the proposed rule establishes that the prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would also be barred. This piggybacks on other federal rulemaking that made it illegal for federal contractors to discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposed rules would apply to health insurance marketplaces, any health program that the HHS administers, and any health program or activity receiving funding from the HHS.

The rules’ protections would also be extended to individuals enrolled in plans offered by insurers participating in the health insurance exchanges. In other words, if your health insurer offers a plan on the exchanges, all of its plans are barred from discriminatory benefit designs or marketing practices.

HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell said in a news release, “This proposed rule is an important step to strengthen protections for people who have often been subject to discrimination in our health care system. This is another example of this administration’s commitment to giving every American access to the health care they deserve.”

As for the other droids — ahem, nondiscrimination rules — we’re still waiting.

Last week, we carried a story about a company that was forced to pay $30,000 for the alleged harassment of a female field worker. Here’s a similar tale — but the numbers are considerably larger.  

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. will pay $3.8 million to a class of women workers who were subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and the EEOC announced.

The agreement requires Con Edison to reserve up to $3.8 million to be distributed among eligible settlement group members — as many as 300 blue-collar women workers employed in field positions between 2006 and 2014.

EEOC spokesman Kevin Berry said, “These women signed up for strenuous work when they took these important jobs — they did not sign up for demeaning job assignments, to be denied promotional opportunities, and to be subjected to rampant harassment, all simply because of their gender. EEOC will continue fighting discrimination in our nation’s workplaces.”

Con Ed provides electric, gas, and steam service to approximately 3.4 million customers in New York City and Westchester County.  Both EEOC and the AG’s office launched an investigation into complaints made by women working in field positions at Con Edison about ongoing sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

The women workers alleged that they faced widespread harassment by male co-workers and a hostile work environment based on gender and that Con Ed had failed to address this discrimination. EEOC also received complaints from women that they had been delayed or denied promotions from the entry-level general utility worker position to various next-level positions because of gender.

The women worked with men in the field in manholes, power stations and other positions involving physically strenuous activities and maintaining the public’s access to electricity. While working in such traditionally male jobs, the women alleged that they were:

• denied, delayed, and given subpar on-the-job training as compared to their male peers
• assigned menial, “make-work” tasks and isolated by male co-workers in group work settings
• refused or stonewalled when seeking admission to classes necessary for promotions
• not provided tools or safety gear in situations where male co-workers were supplied both
• denied adequate sanitary and private restroom, shower, and changing facilities
• subjected to disparate and excessive discipline as compared to male co-workers who engaged in comparable conduct
• given less positive performance evaluations than their male counterparts for doing comparable work, and
• denied overtime assignments despite eligibility under collective bargaining agreements.

The women further alleged that Con Ed failed to take effective action to improve or prevent such discriminatory working conditions and failed to meaningfully enforce its internal equal employment opportunity policies concerning gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment and non-retaliation.

The women claimed they faced retaliation when they complained to supervisors or to Con Ed’s Office of Diversity & Inclusion about their work conditions.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in addition to providing monetary relief to eligible settlement class members, Con Edison will:

• retain an independent consultant to evaluate Con Edison’s compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement
• retain an independent equal employment opportunity specialist to develop and conduct employee training
• institute improved policies and protocols concerning the investigation of discrimination and harassment complaints, and
• provide training to field supervisors on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with an emphasis on illegal sex discrimination and sex harassment.

Learn about the problem of identity theft, the risk to your employees and what you can do to help.

Click here to learn more!  

You’ve got to be pretty tough to be the lone female roustabout on an oil field construction crew. But apparently there’s a limit to how much you have to endure.  

An Iraan, Texas oil field construction and services company will pay $30,000 and furnish other relief to settle a retaliation lawsuit brought by EEOC, the agency announced.

The EEOC’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, charged that Garrison Contractors, Inc. fired its only female roustabout, Elma Garza, after she reported being sexually harassed on the job.

Hired by the company in January 2012 as a dump truck driver, Garza spent most of her employment as the company’s only female oil field worker.  In this roustabout position, Garza worked side by side with her male co-workers fixing oil and gas leaks, digging ditches and cleaning heavy equipment.

EEOC suit claimed that during her employment, Garza was subjected to lewd comments about female organs and sex.  When Garza reported the unwanted conduct, the company fired her, the agency alleged.

In addition to monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit also requires the company to:

• implement a written anti-retaliation policy to ensure that employee complaints are addressed while providing protection to employees from adverse employment action for lodging such complaints
• conduct annual training for all officers, managers, gang pushers and roustabouts for three years on the law against retaliation in the workplace, and
• post an anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation notice.

In a press release, EEOC regional attorney Robert Canino said, “Given the isolated nature of oil field work assignments, combined with the traditionally male makeup of these jobs, women may be vulnerable to offensive and harsh treatment if there is not a clear company message that harassment is not tolerated.

“A response that excludes female workers from the field by firing them is unacceptable and unlawful.  Good management operates to stop misconduct — not punish the person who brings it to light.”

Open enrollment season shines the spotlight on HR pros’ presentation skills. After all, it’s up to you to explain what your company’s benefits plan has to offer. Are you up to the task?

To help ensure you are, here are 15 common mistakes you want to avoid during benefits presentations (none of these are quite as disastrous as the dream where you’re presenting in your underwear, but they’re still pretty bad):

1. Turning your back to the audience. It can come off as rude. Even if you have to point to a presentation slide behind you, it’s possible to do so without completely turning around.
2. Only staring at one spot in the audience. This makes you look nervous, and it fails to get everyone engaged.
3. Avoiding eye contact. Good eye contact exudes confidence, engagement and concern. Avoiding eye contact makes you seem skittish.
4. Crossing your arms. It sends a subtle message that you’re closed off and defensive.
5. Standing in the same spot for the entire presentation. Not only does this make your presentation seem stale, it also makes you more likely to drift off mentally. Movement helps the brain stay alert.
6. Sitting when you should stand. There are times when it’s appropriate to sit during open enrollment presentations, like when you’re speaking to managers in a small board room. But if you’re in a large conference area, and all the seats are facing forward, you should absolutely stand (and move around). It makes you appear knowledgeable and engaged.
7. Bad posture. Hanging your head or slouching your shoulders can make you look weary and unconfident.
8. Placing hands on your hips. This gives off a hint of arrogance or impatience.
9. Repeating gestures … over and over. When you make the same hand movements again and again, in quick succession, it becomes very distracting to the audience.
10. Fidgeting. This is a dead giveaway that you’re nervous, and nervousness is distracting.
11. Playing with hair or clothes. Typically, presenters do this because they’re nervous, but onlookers see these as signs someone isn’t comfortable — either with themselves or with the material they’re presenting.
12. Not smiling. If you don’t seem happy to be there, employees won’t be. Plus, it prevents them from wanting to ask questions and engage in conversations.
13. Complaining. Of course, you don’t plan to complain about your benefits plan. Still, it’s important to remember that complaining — whether it’s about technical difficulties with your presentation or something one of your benefits providers did — makes you look negative.
14. Making excuses. It’s natural to want to make excuses for failings (perhaps you weren’t able to keep some popular benefits you offered last year). But it’s usually better to just take responsibility while explaining what happened.
15. Exaggerating. Obviously, you want to make your benefits plans sound as good as can be. But be careful not to exaggerate what they can do or how much money certain benefits can save employees. Also, be mindful that you’re not passing along opinions as facts.